Women tend to fear a lot of different things. This makes sense given their vulnerability. Most men are wired to want to protect women and this includes protection from living in fear. In the right context this is a very beneficial trait.

One way to look at the history of feminism is consider it as men and women working to remove women’s fears. I had been considering this issue when by an incredible stroke of luck one of my readers found the transcript of the actual conversations which lead to our current state. I won’t reveal my source, but it pays to have readers who have access to the official white knight archives:

Woman: I’d like to have sex with men I’m not married to, but I’m afraid I’ll be judged. I’m also afraid the man won’t provide for me and my child should I become pregnant.

Woman: Oh, thank you! But what if I’m more traditional, and prefer the classic route to baby-mama hood? It would be trashy to raise a child on my own having never married. What if I want to pretend to marry him for life, but then later realize that I’m not haaapy and divorce? My fellow churchgoers might judge me, and I won’t have the benefit of his wealth or paycheck any more.

Woman: Well, I’m attracted to men with the dark triad traits. But what if living with or marrying a narcissistic psychopath doesn’t turn out to be a good idea? What if he hits me?

White knight brigade: Don’t worry, just leave him and we’ll make sure he is punished!

Woman: But what if I don’t want to leave him. Can’t you just tame him for me?

White knight brigade: (following a short conference) We have decided it isn’t your fault; some other man (most likely your father) must be to blame for you wanting to stay with an abuser. Therefore we have decided tame him for you.

It turns out there was still more to fear though. She returned later with an unforeseeable concern:

Woman: Everything was going according to plan, but after I kicked the father of my children out of the house he isn’t working as hard as he used to. He says since he is no longer the head of the family he should no longer have the responsibility to work like one.

White knight brigade: This is an outrage! We’ll figure out how much money we think he should make and impute the income. If he doesn’t pay up, we’ll throw him in prison!

Another woman: I have a similar problem, but my ex isn’t working because he lost his job and the economy is bad. Can you still help? I really need the money for a planned trip to Europe and India where I can pray, eat, and love.

White knight brigade: Of course, we’ll still make up a figure and put him in jail if he isn’t able to pay it.

But even this wasn’t enough. Our heroes in the white knight brigade have worked tirelessly to remove the risk from women making bad choices. Consider the following:

Woman: I’d really like to go to secluded places with strange men. How else am I supposed to be a proper slut? But what if I change my mind just before, during, or after sex? It will be his word against mine. And what if he uses his strength to overpower me?

Woman: Speaking of rape, I’d like to wear revealing clothing in bad parts of town and/or at night. But if I make bad choices and am raped I want everyone to insist that I didn’t use bad judgment.

White knight brigade: We’ve created a new slogan just for this. We will call anyone who suggests that you use good judgment “blaming the victim”.

Woman: What if I’m living with a man and want to provoke a fight with him? I love drama, but sometimes I go too far. Is there any way you can make baiting men into violence safe?

White knight brigade: Yes. You have an unqualified right to slap, shove, yell at, and physically block your man. If he ever does anything in response, we will put him in jail without considering your own actions.

Therefore you should fear it and take appropriate precautions. Just like pain, fear serves an essential function; it discourages us from making bad choices.

We can’t really make the world safe for women to make bad choices. All we are doing right now is shifting as much of the burden as possible away from the women making bad choices onto men, society at large, and the woman’s children. In the end even this won’t really protect women from making bad choices, it will only make them appear safe. Often times assuaging women’s fear involves outright denial of the risks which accompany bad choices. Most often all this does is delay the experience of the bad outcome until it is too late for the woman to make better choices.

I think about what would happen if my husband or I died a lot. It scares me. But I think I want to compile a list of things for him to read if I die. I don’t really feel the need to shove the red pill in his face now, cause he’s safe with me, but were I not to be here, I’d want him to be able to pursue relationships aware of the risks.

See also the film: ‘The Witches of Eastwick’. The synopsis you might find will tell you that some women dabbled in witchcraft to conjure up the perfect man. They end up with a creature portrayed as the devil himself. I haven’t looked back at this for some time, but as I recall the producer and the director had both experienced a nasty divorce from their respective spouses just prior to the making of the film. In the movie, the ‘witches’ send the father of their children into exile, take his house and smash up his vintage Merc.

Don’t worry, Celeste, responsible women exist, albeit in the minority (I’m rather good with understatement, don’t you think?) We’re not quite extinct. I suspect your husband would know what to look for and where to find it.

When you mandate that only the priveledged groups (women, gays, certain ethnic groups) must be shieded from the responsibility of their actions, the circle is not complete.

And it is damaging. for the protected groups.

Now.. for the women etc … consider.

1. Can you judge where a dangerous area starts?
2. If you find yourself in a bad area, what do you do? Get the hell out (good), become quite polite (good as weel) or flaunt your wealth, your beauty?
3. If you then get mugged, raped and robbed, whom to you look for help?

I clearly recall walking in SF when I was married, and her being offended that I told her not to walk down a street — that was the start of the bowery.

She could not read a street. I could.

What I find annoying is that when people say the truth as Grerp did the women are deeply offended.

For me? I’ll protect my grand daughter. She is seven, and an impulsive seven. I’ll rescue my daughter, my sisters, my mother, my friends. But the generic woman gets simple politeness. Because more is risky. To me, and to my boys.

Dalrock,
You really have nailed it!
I work in LE and I’ve had State’s Attorneys and Prosecutors read me the riot act for daring to arrest a woman in domestic violence cases, when the gal clearly violated the law. I’m told I’m to enforce the “spirit” of the law, (read, only arrest the man). I refuse to be a pawn in the liberal/socialist eyewash that is the domestic violence charade. The statute is clear and not sex specific, so I enforce the letter of the law, not some goosestepping bella abzug man bashing “spirit” of the law.
I must admit, the look of utter shock on a woman’s face when she is handcuffed, marched out to the paddy wagon, finger printed, mug shot, and the the lock-up door slams shut is priceless!

Most guys feel intense embarrassment about having the gal arrested…I simply ask him if he thinks she would hesitate one second about having him arrested if he hit her…

@Buck … awesome ….
“I must admit, the look of utter shock on a woman’s face when she is handcuffed, marched out to the paddy wagon, finger printed, mug shot, and the the lock-up door slams shut is priceless!”

Buck are you sure arent some sort of real life superhero? If so is dalrock your kryptonian mentor ? Seriously that’s pretty awesome, i thght most cops were crazed manginas, how many dv cases do you get per week buck?

“Most guys feel intense embarrassment about having the gal arrested…I simply ask him if he thinks she would hesitate one second about having him arrested if he hit her…”

Yep most cops are insane manginas, not to mention ridiculous racists at least here in the u.k, nothing like an under educated dough nut eating thug with a nightstick … some stereotypes never die … lol

Risks can never be eliminated 100 percent. They can only be assessed, quanitified, and then actions done to manage and minimize them.

Men and boys learn early on to assess risks and quantify them if possible. Then we learn to minimize risk (by reducing conduct that brings it about or increases it) and manage it (by finding alternate methods, or encountering known risks with fewer negative consequences). It becomes second nature to us. We learn we can’t have our cake and eat it too. anyone who tries learns that if he loses, he will lose big.

By contrast, many women don’t want to have to learn risk assessment, avoidance and minimization. Instead they want to do what they want, with no or very little risk, and if it goes badly, to have someone available to clean it up or take the blame.

I just had an argument about “blaming the victim” with a classmate the other day. I’m used to high emotions and the tendency to repeat one’s point instead of putting forth new ones or addressing opposing ones, but this particular girl actually claimed that warning women of the potential consequences of bad decisions increased both unreported rapes, and actual instances of rape. As in, running an ad campaign saying, “Don’t get drunk around a bunch of strange frat boys you’ve never met,” actually made it *more* likely for the individual girl to get raped at all. Unfortunately, it was a verbal conversation, and I honestly could not follow her reasoning well enough to effectively transcribe it here. Something about shifting the responsibility towards women making individual men feel like they could get away with it, though she gave me a blank look when I asked if personal responsibility was a zero-sum game.

More importantly, the four other girls present agreed with her. But then, chicks in groups always agree when the opposition is a man.

The propaganda has been enormously successful. If nothing else, feminism was the original gangster of applied female psychology.

The irony is that feminism has done much more to ensure that women live their old age out in poverty and lack of safety.
Whoa! Where did you get this “fact” from?
Oh, and…But then, chicks in groups always agree when the opposition is a man.
Huh?
I am not a huge fan of generalizations or stereotypes. I am also wondering just what the definition of feminism is on this blog. A woman who has chosen to eschew marriage and/or kids — the operative word being “chosen,” not “she was too fat/ugly/old/sexually undesirable to land a man? (Saw something along those lines on another, almost laughably misogynistic thread). A woman who supports herself and doesn’t depend on a man? Are you wishing you could go back in a time machine to the days of June Cleaver?
I am very curious, folks. I frankly haven’t heard these kinds of discussions since the early 1970s.

TFH: “The irony is that feminism has done much more to ensure that women live their old age out in poverty and lack of safety”.
Alphalady: “Whoa! Where did you get this “fact” from?”
It is obvious to anyone who can think about consequences, unintentional though they may be. A higher divorce rate and lower marriage rate, along with the difficulty of women getting hitched past age 50, means that there are more single old ladies. When we couple this with the facts that women on average both live longer than men and save less than men, then the result of a higher poverty rate is guaranteed.
The reasons for lower safety are also easily realized by the average intellect. Given a choice, criminals always go for the easiest target, the ones least likely to defend themselves. Be they con men, travellers, thieves or muggers, their favorite target is a single old lady. An old couple is much less likely to be preyed upon – witnesses are dangerous, an old man still has more muscle left on average than a young woman, and old men are more likely to own and know how to use firearms.
Go and google to your heart’s content, you will not find information that contradicts this.

Odds: “But then, chicks in groups always agree when the opposition is a man.”
Alphalady: “Huh?”

Strange, usually the humanities courses taken by the majority of women in college demonstrate this. Did you not go to college, or perhaps were majoring in ‘party’?
This is basic psychology. Women (and men to a lesser degree) tend to gang up in order to pick on a lone person. When it is women grouping up on men, you very rarely find a woman that can break the ‘herd mentality’, due to the greater social attitude and reliance that women have on such. It can happen, but only with a woman with great strength of will and an emotional connection to the man involved (which proves the rule, in my opinion).

And finally, generalizations and stereotypes are very handy tools for the human mind. It’s a way to more quickly assess the probable outcome of an encounter. A lion charging at you may just be overjoyed to see you (see youtube video of Christian, the lion), but the stereotype of being the entree on his menu would be far more probable. Likewise, the young muscular man with a pipe in his hand coming out of the shadows may be asking you for help with his plumbing.
Yes, men use generalizations more than women, it’s built into us from thousands of years of dealing with threats. It doesn’t take a sure thing to put us on our guard, that would have killed our forefathers quickly. Right now, marriage is a threat, a good marriage is a poorer bet than red or black at a Vegas roulette table. Hence the generalization and stereotype that is making it’s way out of the manosphere and into the mainstream.

Yes, I actually did go to college. Surprise! (Questioning someone’s education and intellect– or perceived lack thereof — when they disagree with you is always a great way to get the upper hand in a debate.) Do a degree from New York University and post grad work at Le Sorbonne cut it?

And no, I did not major in “party.” Furthermore, I did not take a humanities course. (Guess I am not of the ‘herd’ mentality.) I am also a very keen observer of people. In my experience, men tend to stick together and stick up for each other. Women, however, do not. Just my experience. Oh, and I honestly can say that the majority of “old ladies” I know are married (in some cases for the second time) or in relationships. (Old ladies who are not alone and miserable! Imagine that!) The only single old lady I know is my great aunt. But she is a bed-ridden, 90-year-old lesbian, so she has a good excuse.

Meanwhile, you still didn’t answer my question: What exactly is the working definition of “feminist” amongst the exalted, all-knowing Dalrockers?

Nice article Dalrock i always wondered where the laws of Misandry came from. (same place babies come from huh?)
Alphalady why are you playing dumb. You know what a feminist is and you are also college educated. Hell, you should be telling the rest of us what feminism and a feminist is.

Someone who is intelligent and educated should know that anecdote does not equal data. “How could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him.” TFH and I am explaining what the result of the current trend will be. It’s called extrapolation. Do I need to use smaller words?
Yes, I’m happy to return a genteel insult. I am a gentleman only when replying to a lady.

What is a feminist, Alphalady? Just look in the mirror, you’ve found one. Congratulations!

At a lot of the feminist blogs I read, there comes a point at which the opposition comes in a lot to comment, making a lot of the same arguments, leading to a rehashing of the same points on each thread. At this point, the banning hammer starts to come down harder so that it’s not just a rehashing every time.

I wonder if I am observing a nearing of that turning point here? As the commentariat grows, it seems like a lot of folks keep defending the same points again and again to similar opposition.

As the commentariat grows, it seems like a lot of folks keep defending the same points again and again to similar opposition.

That’s pretty much the way it has been for the past 50 years. I haven’t heard many new arguments since the early 1980s. Most people past the age of 30 or so are unlikely to change their world view. It is those under 30 who are somewhat amenable to being influenced by things others say.

If their life choices are working out for people, there is no reason for them to change. If they aren’t, it is highly likely that they will be even more invested in their viewpoints, and will defend them even more vigorously.

The best strategy is to point out to someone that they have just been handed a live grenade with the pin pulled and that is a very dangerous situation. If they deny it and say “No, it isn’t” the best strategy is to put as much distance between yourself and the impending blast zone as you can.

I honestly can say that the majority of “old ladies” I know are married (in some cases for the second time) or in relationships.

Well,since I hear banjos in the distance… it must be time for dueling anecdotes. In the office where I work, only two of the women over about age 40 are married. The rest are all divorced – some of them multiple times. None of the single women are in relationships or are even “dating.” Most of the women under 40 are married, but the divorce epidemic is creeping in. We average about 2 divorces per year.

@alphafemale
“I am also a very keen observer of people. In my experience, men tend to stick together and stick up for each other. Women, however, do not. Just my experience. ”

Women tend to through each other under the bus for individual advancement. For example the age old, ‘Oh, she’s a slut because she’s slept with 25 people. But I’m different because of (insert reason) and I’ve only slept with 20!”

However they’ll round up the wagons around anyone accusing females as a whole of being wrong or anything that threatens that reason they’re inserting into their argument. Don’t get me wrong, men do throw each other under the bus occasionally as well. But usually there’s much more of a tendency to stand by your friends as individuals and the group you identify with. When men throw other men under a bus its usually someone they identify as, ‘other’ or ‘the enemy’.

For all your hatred of generalizations, you certainly do generalize your knowledge of old women. Generalizations are great tools for discussing trends of anything as long as they’re supported by facts and data. Dalrock consistently supplies and links to studies he’s drawing his thoughts and conclusions from, which I would assume majority of the men commenting here either know or do as well. If you want to say that most old women are married, I would like to see your evidence of that from some data, especially if you’re going to try and claim many people are able to find a second marriage. Most of the facts that I’ve seen show that women have a horrible chance of finding a second marriage.

Prove me wrong. I would love to think that they can find a happy, stable marriage. That they ended the first for all the right reasons and not because she’s not haaaaaaapy.

Oh, and Alphalady, I would say that feminists are the people who actively advocate that women are empowering themselves by sleeping around with whoever gets them excited through their 20’s and early 30’s and pursue their career without educating women on how destructive this can be to finding a happy husband. They insist on ignoring that men and women are different biologically in what they want out of life and how they go about getting it. To this end they have pursued legal and social constructs, such as Dalrock describes in this post and others, to take away as much risk and shame as they can from women.

Do a degree from New York University and post grad work at Le Sorbonne cut it?

Now why does that make me think of this movie, despite your assertion that “no, I did not major in ‘party.'”

I did find this interesting: Furthermore, I did not take a humanities course. Odd that you should go to a school that lists the following entrance requirements:
4 years of English with a heavy emphasis on writing;
3-4 years of history/social studies;
3-4 years of mathematics;
3-4 years of laboratory sciences; and
3-4 years of a foreign language.

Fess up, kitten: you’ve had to take humanities courses SOMEwhere. Oh, and your gratuitous name-dropping on universities DOES NOT IMPRESS MEN. See Roissy/Heartiste, and come back when you’ve learned not to stamp your feet and pout in public.

Meanwhile, you still didn’t answer my question: What exactly is the working definition of “feminist” amongst the exalted, all-knowing Dalrockers?

Dalrock so very funny, this should be a play or something. Feminism: The cliffnotes!

I wonder if I am observing a nearing of that turning point here? As the commentariat grows, it seems like a lot of folks keep defending the same points again and again to similar opposition.

I think you been witness is the birth of the echo chamber. Feminism is like a religion with “sins” included once you commited a sin you get to be punished by shaming (to see if you repent and see the light) or by banning. The funny thing is that once they get rid of the “infidels” they start attacking each other over some pecata minuta. That is why big feminists sites start to shrink after a while and they need to emigrate or create new sites that are more in line with their personal brand of feminism.
Also Celeste all you have to do to make sure your husband is safe is not dying. That is my plan. :)

Dalrock, well-written post. But the issue is why society goes so far to to try to enable female choices and to see the role of men as propping up those choices. Your post suggests that it is due to “white-knighting”. But I don’t think that can be the whole explanation – why did white knighting not produce the same results prior to the 1970s?

I think it also has to do with specific aspects of contemporary left-liberalism. If you are a liberal you will believe that our status as humans is based on our capacity for autonomous choice. So the liberal political project is to a) maximise individual autonomy by removing impediments to individual choice and b) to make sure there is, in a literal sense, human equality by engineering society with the aim of all groups having equal autonomy.

But what if such equality doesn’t seem to exist? It must be, reason the left-liberals, because one group has taken more autonomy for itself (privilege) at the expense of another group (the “other”) who are treated as less than fully human. Therefore, the left-liberal project is to increase the autonomy of the “oppressed” group, with “social justice” requiring that the formerly privileged group support act to support this redistribution.

And that is the logic behind what happened in the later 1900s. Women were tagged as the oppressed group, men as the oppressors. Therefore, the aim was to maximise the autonomy of women (unimpeded choice) with men being expected to support and to prop up such choices as a matter of equality and justice.

That is why Warren Farrell’s book The Myth of Male Power made such a splash at the time it was released (1994). It took on the orthodox left-liberal assumptions on which gender politics was based by challenging the idea that men were privileged at the expense of women.

Of course, generalizations are useful. I don’t know where this stupid idea that you “should not generalize” came from.

To generalize is to think. It is impossible to think without generalizing. Alphalady uses generalization all the time.

If I say, USA is richer than Uganda, I’m generalizing. Of course, very rich people in Uganda are richer than poor people in America but, ON AVERAGE, people in USA are richer than people in Uganda.

Let’s suppose that 95% of people in America are richer than people in Uganda. If I say “people are richer in Uganda than in America”, I have an error of 5%. Fair enough. But, if I say, you can’t generalize, there are rich people and poor people in America and Uganda, I am conveying the information that the thing is about 50%, so I have 45% on error.

“Studying is good for your professional life”. Well, you can’t generalize. Bill Gates left Harvard to create Microsoft.
“Men are taller than women”. Well, you can’t generalize. There are women that are very tall.
“Saudi Arabians are Muslims”. Well, you can’t generalize. There are some minority of non-Muslims, about the 1%.

Without generalizations, you can’t make any statement. You are going through the world without any information: everything is an exception. It is impossible to live that way and nobody lives that way. What feminist mean when they say “don’t make generalizations” is “don’t make generalizations that depict women in an unfavorable light”. So it’s a get out of the jail card.

Alphalady is following the pattern of feminist women who discover that – THE HORROR!!! – there are men who don’t subscribe to the Feminist Gospel. We have seen it one thousand times.

1) They come with good manners, playing the dumb, asking questions to engage in debate. They are sure that they have the truth and they can easily convince these misguided men with their superior feminist arguments.

2) They engage in debate and then, they discover that they cannot win the debate with their feminist arguments and their anecdotes (because the plural of anecdote is not data).

3) Then, they use contempt. Firstly the contempt is hidden (“I haven’t heard these things since the 70s”), then it is more visible.

4) When they know they cannot win the debate, they leave the forum with “shaming language”: “You guys are embittered losers and I can’t waste my time with you” or something like that.

See, afaik, Feminism 2.0 was a sub-branch of the great cultural marxist revolution of 1968. As such it should be viewed out of a cultural marxist perspective.

What aims does Cultural Marxism have? It aims to destroy national identity, cultural cohesion (the big family) and matrimonial stability (the small family) as a precondition for marxist revolution. For only once cultural and familial links have been successfully disrupted is the atomized individual ripe for the “liberating” ideology of the cultural marxists.

Seen from this viewpoint Feminism 2.0 is nothing more than a cultural marxist agent. General cultural marxists occupied positions of authority in science, society and politics (rather easy due to the fact that most 68er recruits were intellectuals and students) from which they compromised western societies’ homogenity (by importing masses of 3rd world immigrants) and suppressed dissent (via their bludgeon political correctness). Second wave feminists worked hand in hand with these “progressives”, creating ever increasing inequality between the sexes, demonizing men and effectively destroying the family unit. And it all worked rather neat. It’s multidimensional warfare.

Incidentally, other elites benefited as well….and just exploited the follies and feeblemindedness of liberals (cultural marxists) and feminists:

Just ask yourself who benefited from feminism and the importation of cheap labour?

1.) Feminism: women deserve the right to work the same shitty jobs as men do -> doubling of workforce, halfing of wages -> money elite benefits!

2.) Feminism: The clan and family is the basis for resistance to governmental oppression -> feminists make it impossible for most men and women to form lasting bonds -> atomized society -> less resistance to the government -> the government benefits!

One day the wimminz will realize they were totally and absolutely hoodwinked and that it was their irationality, selfishness and amorality that was exploited by diverse agents of chaos and which subsequently brought about the fall of the greatest civilisation ever to exist on the planet: that of the West!

I have come across a dislike of generalisations on occasions before, and always from women – never heard it from men. I presume that is because men want to make sense of the world and reduce disparate data to comprehensible patterns. Women seem to have no need to do so (mystery and confusion aid their purpose) and generalisations, that is to say Philosophising, I would say, appears to a woman, an attempt to block her from going NAWALT. There are no female philosophers (other than on the subject of women) and the Marys Midgely and Douglas.

Yes Douglas, was or is an anthropolgist, who confirmed that there is no such thing as a free lunch – people hate charity and all gifts must be repaid.

With regard to your second sentence (if I may) I was met with pretty much the same complaint on an fb page recently: a young woman complaining about my arachaic language – a dead give away I would say that I have hit a nerve – the attempt to re-write the language to change the meaning is not going to faze me even though she squeals.

Feminism is an ideology that elevates women above all else in society. Feminists are adherents to that ideology. Organized feminists are simply a special interest group, no different than any other, that uses their power for the benefit of their group and themselves.

Dalrock, well-written post. But the issue is why society goes so far to to try to enable female choices and to see the role of men as propping up those choices. Your post suggests that it is due to “white-knighting”. But I don’t think that can be the whole explanation – why did white knighting not produce the same results prior to the 1970s?

I think it also has to do with specific aspects of contemporary left-liberalism. If you are a liberal you will believe that our status as humans is based on our capacity for autonomous choice. So the liberal political project is to a) maximise individual autonomy by removing impediments to individual choice and b) to make sure there is, in a literal sense, human equality by engineering society with the aim of all groups having equal autonomy.

Thanks Mark!

I agree that the left had a specific agenda here. Feminists wanted to remake the social order. But this doesn’t explain why the rest of the culture, and specifically Social Conservatives, went along so enthusiastically. They are the white knight brigade.

I know why the bank robber stole the money, what is interesting is why the guards chose to help him do it.

Take any of those issues and discuss them with the average non liberal. When is the last time you heard a conservative complain about child support in general, let alone the practice of imputing income? If a conservative is talking about child support (outside of the manosphere), they are fretting about deadbeat dads who are letting down those (as the gentleman from FOTF said) heroic single mothers.

Or take Domestic Violence. When is the last time conservatives worried about the absurdly unfair and profoundly anti family DV laws?

Lets speak about what is not…
A woman who believes that men and women are created different, but with equal value.
A woman who recognizes the value in men’s strengths and doesn’t begrudge him these differences.
A woman who accepts the limits of her sex, knowing womanhood has its strengths too.
A woman who is chaste, truthful, tender hearted and not resentful of value in others.
A woman who doesn’t offer unsolicited advice.
A woman who recognizes that men really don’t care about any life accomplishments of a woman if she is a cantankerous bitch…be pleasant.
A woman who understands that stable marriage, family, religion and societal shaming of aberrant conduct is judgmental and that is not a negative.
A woman who understands that the world does not revolve around “you” and “your” fluid definition of happiness.

What men find most repellent about feminists is that they are bitter and angry.

WHY was this all promoted by the mass media and Government for several generations now?

When you have a large population of single women living alone with no Husbands to protect them from their fears ,who do they turn to for the illusion of protection?

Big daddy government. This is why the State loves single motherhood and the single mother household. It serves two purposes…it perpetually churns out generations of criminal prone boys which provide grist for the industrial-incarceration complex, as well as further justification to militarize the local police force to deal with the social chaos. It also provides justification to pass all these laws doing an end-around on the Constitutional Rights we supposedly have in the “Land of the free and home of the brave.”

Hence, the ever-expanding police state reaching into every aspect of our lives, ignoring our constitutional rights at every turn.

Or take Domestic Violence. When is the last time conservatives worried about the absurdly unfair and profoundly anti family DV laws?

The US Federal law VAWA is up for reauthorization. Outside of the evil Men’s Rights, no one seems to know or care. The feminists know, and they care, and they are lobbying like crazy for reauthorization of this very bad law.

All those “protect marriage, save marriage” groups do not care. He-man Patriarch Traditionalists do not care. Rule-of-law conservatives do not care. The “Obey God’s way” Social Conservatives do not care. Obviously the likes of Kay Hymowitz, Bill Bennett, etc. either don’t care, or are all in favor of reauthorization.

So we have multiple groups of people who on the one hand are constantly urging men to “man up”, but who cannot be bothered to lift their little finger in even token opposition of a law that is clearly, demonstrably, misandry on tracks. And these are the groups who, just like feminists, go out of their way to demonize the righteously angry men.

A bank robbery is happening, and the “guards” are too busy off in their private mutual-congratulation society, having tea and cakes, to even notice. But they’ll be glad to stand upon a pedestal and shake their fingers at the righteously angry men, oh, yes. That’s what ankle-biters do. And that’s all they do.

Mark Richardson, you appear to be overthinking the situation. Dalrock summed it up very well:

Women tend to fear a lot of different things. This makes sense given their vulnerability. Most men are wired to want to protect women and this includes protection from living in fear. In the right context this is a very beneficial trait.

The pedestalization of women in the 19th century has resulted in an ever growing requirement for men to make women happy. And so, when some foghorn like Steinem claimed that women were not happy because men had too much control over them, why, that had to be fixed. The problem that you traditionalists/traditional conservatives/whatever have is pretty simple: as a group, you can’t tell women “no”, because that would make them unhappy, and your Prime Directive is “No Woman Shall Be Unhappy”, or so it seems to me. Certainly the record of Social/Traditional conservatives caving in to feminine demands strongly indicates this.

Maybe Slumlord can tell us if there is anything more important in the modern world than women’s haaaapiness? I’m looking forward to his discussion of that.

By the way, when are you going to get around to defining your term? When will you tell us what a “Traditionalist Conservative” is?

@umslopogaas says:
“Seen from this viewpoint Feminism 2.0 is nothing more than a cultural marxist agent. …..
Just ask yourself who benefited from feminism and the importation of cheap labour?”

Man, absolutely, you hit the nail on the head. MRM tries too hard to analyze feminism – why did so many women adopt it, etc. as if its root is in women. It is not. Our ruling elite funded it in order to bring about the exact results we see today.

I know why the bank robber stole the money, what is interesting is why the guards chose to help him do it.

The problem for the West is that the kind of men who live their personal lives conservatively, nonetheless identify with a liberal political order (I mean “liberal” in the broader sense, i.e. including classical liberalism).

So they aren’t likely to initiate the attacks on the traditional family, but they aren’t focused on defending it either. Their political focus in on other matters that fit within a liberal political culture: participation within the market, participation within democratic institutions, a concern with individual liberties etc.

If these men really were oriented to guarding tradition, then not only would they defend the traditional family, they would also defend a traditional nationalism and a traditional morality. But they don’t – these have been relegated to the status of personal interests or concerns rather than political ones. Politics is conducted within a liberal framework or a a liberal political culture.

MRAs get exasperated that such men aren’t interested in DV laws or divorce laws – and they are correct that there is no focus on these things. But that’s not because there is a powerful traditionalist movement which has failed to protect men because of white knighting (though white knighting is part of the mix and is worth criticising).

It’s because so many men living conservative personal lives are oriented to guarding, in the public realm, not tradition but a liberal political order.

Mark Richardson, in about 5 weeks there will be a protest in Washington, DC. It will be on the anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision Roe V. Wade that created a right to abortion. Going by historical records, somewhere between 100,000 and 800,000 people will stand in bad weather on the Mall down hill from the US Congress for over an hour, to protest against abortion. Are those people not like you? Are they not social, or traditional, conservatives? Is that not a clear demonstration of a movement with some power?

How many of those hundreds of thousands will protest the re-authorization of VAWA? How many of those hundreds of thousands would show up to support Fathers for Justice, even if the protest was held the next day in the same location? How many of those hundreds of thousands would even consider just writing a simple electronic letter to their Congressional reps opposing the latest forms of institutional misandry?

So far as I can tell, the answers are simple: none, none, and none. So I do indeed see a powerful movement that has been directing a lot of money, time and energy on one issue for over 35 years – and all the while, claiming to be ” supporting the family”, “focused on the family”, “standing up for the family”. And all that time, law after law was enacted that criminalized masculinity, criminalized fatherhood itself, made divorce into a “men’s fault” system – while the powerful social conservative movement did nothing to stop these laws, and often supported them.

In short, I suggest that you are wrong. It is exactly as you say it is not: there are powerful, well funded organizations in the US that say they are “pro-family”, but in reality they are both gynocentric and misandric. And many of them thump their Bibles regularly, is that “socially conservative” enough for you?

Or do you have another definition for “social conservative”, “traditional conservative”, etc.?

Do you even have a definition at all? How can you use a term over and over, if you cannot define it?

“Do a degree from New York University and post grad work at Le Sorbonne cut it?”

Le Sorbonne? Sorry but I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has actually studied there (or has any basic knowledge of French) would not know that it is La Sorbonne. Feminine, not masculine…..

They are best described as the religious right. They believe that abortion is a grave moral sin and so they are motivated to protest against it. But that doesn’t mean that they have a worked out political analysis or political commitment. What they are focused on is abortion being a serious affront to Christian morals.

many of them thump their Bibles regularly, is that “socially conservative” enough for you?

No, it’s not. Not by a long way. That’s setting the bar way too low for what represents a genuine social conservatism. A genuine social conservatism is not about personal religion; it’s an engagement with politics with the aim of conserving what are thought to be valuable aspects of a tradition.

Here again we get to a significant issue. There are many politicians who endorse politically what is clearly incompatible with the religion they hold to personally.

all the while, claiming to be ” supporting the family”, “focused on the family”, “standing up for the family”.

Nearly everyone does this. The mainstream left does it at election time, so does the mainstream right, so do various groups running on a pro-family platform. And usually it means absolutely nothing. There are not many who can step outside of the established political culture. And that culture is premised on choice, diversity, individual rights, on change as progress, on the notion that human freedom is limitless and that those who deny this are motivated by bigotry or privilege. Amd so when some measure is proposed that seems to give more “freedom” (e.g. no fault divorce, state funded paid maternity leave etc) you are hard pressed to find anyone in politics who will think through the real consequences. It will be presented, on both sides of politics, as a measure that will make families stronger.

They are best described as the religious right. They believe that abortion is a grave moral sin and so they are motivated to protest against it. But that doesn’t mean that they have a worked out political analysis or political commitment. What they are focused on is abortion being a serious affront to Christian morals.

I don’t know about Australian politics Mark, but in the US this really is a powerful political block. Republican politicians and even many Democrats have to tread very carefully regarding abortion. The movement isn’t as strong or as vocal now as I recall it being a decade or two ago, but there is still much political organization and force there. The same goes for gay marriage.

And it isn’t just politicians pandering to an unorganized constituency. Groups like Focus On The Family are proud to be seen as radical supporters of the traditional Christian family. Ask an ordinary American and they will tell you that FOTF is a far right diehard traditional Christian group. And they are, so long as you are talking about abortion or gay marriage.

I don’t disagree with you that a true social conservative would not act the way we are seeing, but I think Anon Reader is correct that the people who today call themselves this overwhelmingly don’t support traditional values outside of those two issues. This isn’t even an issue of serious debate within the Traditional Conservative sphere. I think the reason is these folks think they are the real deal. I don’t question that you could put Glenn Stanton of FOTF on a lie detector and he would pass while swearing he is a Traditional Christian, pro biblical marriage, and anti feminist. The same would go for the rank and file who follow him. So this leaves me with two options:

1) Stop calling out the 99.99% of false Traditional Conservatives on their absurd positions in order not to offend or otherwise falsely tar the .01% true Traditional Conservatives like yourself.
2) Speak the truth and encourage those who are the real deal like yourself to give the fakers no quarter and help me actively smoke them out.

Do a degree from New York University and post grad work at Le Sorbonne cut it?

No, but thanks for playing.

Feminist trolls almost always amuse me because they’re so damn bad at it. For instance, this bint chooses the manosphere-savvy moniker “Alpha”lady (N.B.: no such thing) but then claims to have not “heard these kinds of discussions since the early 1970s”. (Implying that she’s 50-60 y/o. Yeah right sure.)

Sorry to hog the comments but Anonymous Reader keeps asking me to define social conservatism or traditionalist conservatism.

So here goes.

Traditionalist conservatism is a reaction to modernist liberalism. Modernist liberalism is an ideology which holds that we are made human by our capacity to self-determine our lives. Therefore, the aim of politics becomes to remove impediments to individual self-determination. That includes whatever is significant in our lives that is predetermined.

And this is where the clash begins with traditionalist conservatives (TCs). TCs believe that much of what is predetermined ought to be defended as being important to self-identity, to the fulfilment of our being, and to the stability and viability of the communal traditions we belong to.

Our sex is predetermined, our ethnicity is predetermined, our membership of particular nations is (usually) predetermined, our family roles are predetermined, and the traditional moral codes we adhere to are (largely) predetermined.

Feminism is liberalism applied to the lives of women. It is the attempt to maximise self-determination/autonomy for women. Most feminists believe that this requires women to prioritise self-chosen careers and an independent income over the biological destiny of motherhood and interdependence with a man. It also leads to a culture in which family commitments are delayed for as long as possible in favour of an independent single girl lifestyle. There are many feminists too who believe that women can become more independent of men through the availability of state welfare and paid maternity leave.

Traditionalist conservatives reject the underlying modernist ideology. We affirm the reality of sex distinctions, the complementarity and interdependence of male and female and the role of the patriarchal family in history in making advanced civilisation possible. We do not make the pursuit of autonomy the sole, overriding good in society, let alone the pursuit of female autonomy. We expect women to act for the social good and we encourage women to identify with what is essentially feminine and to find within this a source of meaningful ideals in their lives.

Far from being an establishment view, traditionalist conservatism is a countercultural movement. We stand in principled opposition to the current political orthodoxy.

Traditionalist conservatism is a reaction to modernist liberalism. Modernist liberalism is an ideology which holds that we are made human by our capacity to self-determine our lives. Therefore, the aim of politics becomes to remove impediments to individual self-determination. That includes whatever is significant in our lives that is predetermined.

So he holds sacred his right to order other people around. Sounds like the Religious Right to me.

Our sex is predetermined, our ethnicity is predetermined, our membership of particular nations is (usually) predetermined, our family roles are predetermined, and the traditional moral codes we adhere to are (largely) predetermined.

Also sacred is his right to tell other people what to believe, and to Man Up. Sounds like the Religious Right to me.

We expect women to act for the social good

Oh look, it’s SOCIETY HAS AN INTEREST boy. Is there any demand SOCIETY HAS AN INTEREST boy can’t make of someone? I know, I know, he’ll lie. The truth is, he only “knows” his limits when he is STOPPED. Sounds like the Religious Right to me.

Oh he is like SOOOOOOOOO different from the Religious Right. In that he can form whole sentences and can keep the Praise Jesus’s under control.

“I don’t question that you could put Glenn Stanton of FOTF on a lie detector and he would pass while swearing he is a Traditional Christian, pro biblical marriage, and anti feminist. ”

like the evangelicals, “trads,” moody churchers, etc, FOTF may say they oppose feminsm, but they DO what females tell them, and support the matriarchy by their actions, like the lefties

no matter how often they mention god or jesus in church, no matter how many bible passages they study and quote, they practice idolatry

“Man, absolutely, you hit the nail on the head. MRM tries too hard to analyze feminism – why did so many women adopt it, etc. as if its root is in women. It is not. Our ruling elite funded it in order to bring about the exact results we see today”.

feminsim isnt a grass-roots phenomenon, but one with many ties to american “old money” esp east coast transgeneratioal clans, networks, schools, fraternities, and corporate/government/intelligence entities

e.g., lucretia mott, co-organizer of the 1848 seneca falls convention, was from the very old money coffin/mott clan that extends back to england

maria shriver, who proclaimed america as “a womans nation” is a privileged princess of the old money/power shriver and kennedy clans

the current condtion of western societies, esp use of feminism in america to destroy masculinity, fatherhood, and family, has been carefully managed

Very seldom in my life have I witnessed such complete mangling of the meaning of words. It almost seems that the words were chosen for their defensible connotations, but the meaning has been totally twisted away from what they mean lexically. It strikes me just like when I hear faux Christians use the word “godly”. As long as that modifier is affixed to the beginning, anything is good.

Both “traditionalism” and “conservatism” seek to hold on to the way things are and resist change. “Reactionary conservatism” is an oxymoron.

What you, and other fringe thinkers like the blogger I refer to as “Bone Head”, come across as advocating is simple seizure of power in order to enforce your values onto everyone. There are 2 ways to accomplish that. In a democratic society it involves convincing enough people to support the candidates who support those policies. Everywhere else it involves guns and arms.

I think your chances of accomplishing the first are very slim. The more you talk, the more people you alienate to the point where they would gladly bid for the opportunity to pull the lever which opens the trap door if you were on the gallows.

You’d better be able to afford a lot of guns and futureless young men to carry them.

Oh, and FYI – you will find me toting a gun for the other side.

So he holds sacred his right to order other people around. Sounds like the Religious Right to me.

Also sacred is his right to tell other people what to believe, and to Man Up. Sounds like the Religious Right to me.

This is the fundamental problem with what is generally labeled “conservatism.” It all turns on “natural order”, and in their minds they are higher on the pecking order than you are.

I didn’t take Harold Camping’s prediction that the world would end this year – either one of them – seriously at all. And, I don’t stuff like this seriously.

Unfortunately, they generate a lot of noise which distracts from the issues at hand.

We should not be arguing with Farce on the family, or the Trad Christians. (Like all lobby groups Farce reduces itself to a straw man).

We should be working together… Low profile folks.

Learn from the feminists… get your gay activists on the committees (for they will not breed, and have no child support to pay) until the policies change… over 40 years.

For feminism jumped the shark. What we are left with is pathetic whining. The only feminists I respect are Tammy Bruce (lesbian, armed, and takes responsibility for her life) and Cactus Kate (very heterosexual, takes responsbility for her philandering, and supports her champagne habit by working in Honkers).

If you cannot stand by yourself and rely on the very “patriarchal” male populated jobs like law enforcement and the military to protect them are not thinking it through.l The protection in our society mainly comes from men. And to claim otherwise is simply a lie, spoken loudbly.

OT – but how much of a done deal is the reauthorization of VAWA? I am assuming it has to be reauthorized because of a funding component and not some other legal reason?

While I am against abortion, I can’t see that the marches on Washington every January accomplish much besides a sort of emotional catharsis/righteousness revel. If you have trained abortionists, access to safe medical equipment, and a population of women who want to terminate, you will have abortions, and once a pharmaceutical alternative became available, there really was no going back. A group of really, really angry men whose lives have been destroyed as a result of VAWA and who have nothing to lose might make for a more effective protest group than the usual Roe v. Wade crowd.

Since it was passed as part of the omnibus “crime” bill of 1994 (which some refer to as Bill’s Crime) along with the so-called “assault weapons ban” which sunsetted in 2004 without reauthorization, it could be that like the gun ban VAWA sunsets, only on a 5 year schedule rather than a 10 year one. If that is the case, then a sunset of VAWA would kill it, and legislators would have to start all over again to enact such a law. However I do not know for sure if this is the case or not.

There is a long list of organizations in the wikipedia article that clearly are funded very extensively by the Federal government thanks to VAWA, so a lot of meal tickets – or iron rice bowls if you prefer – are connected to VAWA. Re-authorization is in the financial interest of a number of activist groups.

What? The most sacred of the sacred cows? How could you possibly suggest that ANYONE vote against the “Violence AGAINST WOMEN Act”? Are you FOR “Violence Against Women”? /end of facetious answer

I’d say it is pretty much a slam dunk. The feminist narrative which underlies the law creates its title, and nothing else much matters.

A group of really, really angry men whose lives have been destroyed as a result of VAWA and who have nothing to lose might make for a more effective protest group than the usual Roe v. Wade crowd.

Oh, you are so naive, grerp – well intentioned, but naive. Men’s anger has been used against them for ages to dismiss their concerns – “Oh, why are you so angry?” It is one of the conversational sabotaging mechanisms to change the subject and set up a straw man – like NAWALT. Being angry is wrong, so angry men have lost before they have even started to discuss what they are justifiably angry about.

A group of really, really, angry men would do nothing except call out the White Knight swat teams.

Fathers 4 Justice staged a nonviolent protest at the Lincoln Memorial, and the protesters were almost outnumbered by the armed Gestapo.

The only meaningful protest is at the ballot box – throw the thieves out office.

There does seem to be a limited value in nonviolent protests; even violent protests that result in violent overthrows often result in more of the same, as we are seeing worldwide. Those who hold all the power allow us our little dramas, but not so much that anything really changes. I can’t help but feel that at all but the local level all is lost.

Feminist are not as tough as they would like everyone to think. In some ways they are just one big bluff. If men ever got a set of balls (or a brain) and organized, the current situation would be quite different. There is now, an entire generation of men and women that have had to deal with the baggage feminists have saddled the rest of society with. Many men and women have grown up without the benefit of fathers due in no small part to the fact that women have chosen to go it alone thereby dooming their kids to poverty, isolation, and despair.

A great example of this is Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts. While part of the MA State Assembly, he Co-Sponsored the first bill for Shared parenting http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5687 . Needless to say, every feminist in New England is spitting angry that some man would have the audacity to fight for “equality”. As someone who came from a broken home, it should be no surprise that it would be someone like him to actually take on the nags.

To counter this moral outrage, the liberals / feminists / Democrats have rolled out Elizabeth Warren, replete with bobbed hair and poor boy glasses, to take on former Play Girl centerfold, Scott Brown in the next election. They are absolutely determined to make sure that this virus is stamped out before more women are harmed (harmed is a euphemism to mean men bad women good). EW, the darling of the left, whose specialty is wholesale scraping money away from men to give to women is now Joan of Arc. I think Rachel Maddow is in love with her. Meanwhile, I just want to puke everytime I hear her name.

“What you, and other fringe thinkers like the blogger I refer to as “Bone Head”, come across as advocating is simple seizure of power in order to enforce your values onto everyone … The more you talk, the more people you alienate to the point where they would gladly bid for the opportunity to pull the lever which opens the trap door if you were on the gallows.”

Zed, I know you’ve described yourself elsewhere as a product of the hippy generation. But really. If traditionalists defend the idea of sex distinctions, whilst liberals seek via state fiat to abolish such distinctions, then why is that I am the one trying to impose my views rather than the state liberals. And do you really believe that a defence of sex distinctions represents a fringe view in society? And do you really think the average person is so enraged by the idea of sex distinctions between men and women that they would line up to execute anyone advocating it?

Most people in their daily lives do exactly what traditionalists advocate. They balance a range of goods rather than always prioritising autonomy. Both men and women choose to sacrifice a measure of autonomy, for instance, in order to commit to marriage or parenthood (yes, I know, feminists have arranged things so that most of the sacrifice now falls to the man).

If you believe that freedom means individual autonomy and should never be compromised then you have a mighty problem. Why then would either men or women commit to lifelong marriage, as this by definition means giving up a considerable measure of autonomy? Why shouldn’t feminists try to keep women as independent of men as possible? Why would I agree to act by rules designed to maintain a level of civilisation, if these are thought to limit what I can choose to do at any time?

Zed, the reality is that a significant number of rank and file members of the MRM are conservative leaning. I don’t think when we debate these issues that you can assume you are talking to a wholly liberal audience. You can’t yell as loudly as possible “Lynch that guy, he’s a conservative” and expect the same response you might get in a more politically correct setting.

grerp says:
“OT – but how much of a done deal is the reauthorization of VAWA? I am assuming it has to be reauthorized because of a funding component and not some other legal reason? ”

There are three reasons why it will be reauthorized: 1. The funding component – too many groups use it to line their pockets; 2. The publicity component – the MSM pushes it as the right thing to do and crucifies any politician who votes against it; 3. It’s part of our ruling elite’s ‘plan’ – to disrupt stable, father headed families.

If the light bulb ban, which, on the surface, only seems to have reason 1. associated with it, can’t be overturned, there’s no way VAWA can be. The same applies to abortion and the three reasons.

being fairly new commenting on this blog, Ive been pleased to see it took a couple of weeks before someone over reacts to social conservatives and employs the straw man of how we want to force our morality on everyone.

I can see their point on 2 issues, abortion and gay marriage. As a Christian conservative yea…..I oppose those things personally. Not to make this post about those 2 things but I am against abortion and would like it a states rights matter, and I personally don’t feel comfortable with gay marriage but frankly i dont care, I have zero advocacy on it, and its a stupid hill to die on for Christians and socons.

Im weary with my fellows defining us with those 2 issues while the family is failing and feminism is at its root….maybe better said gynocentrism, which is the socon feminism.

But why do MRA’s seem to have at least a quorum and maybe an outright majority who are seemingly loathsome of Christians, so much so they go apoplectic at the scent of a Bibles pages. The histrionic reactions to all things Christian or conservative is a huge liability to the main MRM. I get it that we Christians and even non Christian socons have a huge mess of gynocentrism and white knights that define our outward face….i GET that. I cannot stand it, and work unashamedly to change one man at a time to peel the scales off his eyes. Once a socon loses his gynocentric comfy chair, he is a rabid MRA and turns and does battle in what I contend is as hostile a place as the average slutwalk or will-call line at the Vagina Monologues……the main stream evangelical American church.

But they would through the baby and bathwater out…..it requires a bunch of cognitive dissonance to look at social progression over the past 50 years, and say the socons have some cabal of influence that needs to be feared. There is an irony in MRA’s saying that. We readily see how stupid feminist claims that the patriarchy is on the rise are…..its a believe your lyin eyes cliche obvious sort of thing. Same with claiming socons are dragging the country by its morals into some theocracy…..paranoia and “the voices” are a power team I guess.

I cannot stand that socons choose to die on the hills of abortion and gay marriage, things that have an impact on a fraction of the population, while seeing divorce and gynocentrism touching every family directly or tangentially. A perfect example of this would be, imagine in an evangelical church the preacher says one of the foollowing statements

“Homosexuality is sin”
or
“God hates Divorce and it is most often a sin”

The first would have calls of AMEN from the gallery of under bite stern jawed old men who push too much air through their “s” when they use that letter in speech.
No one would likely react outwardly to the divorce comment, after the service there would be “words” in cars while wifes lectured husbands they need to find a new church.
This behavior from Christian socons is unacceptable, and I come against it strongly.

But its not a reason to be so histrionic when you can read right here socon MRA’s who are fine thinkers and activists

“””Zed, the reality is that a significant number of rank and file members of the MRM are conservative leaning. I don’t think when we debate these issues that you can assume you are talking to a wholly liberal audience. You can’t yell as loudly as possible “Lynch that guy, he’s a conservative” and expect the same response you might get in a more politically correct setting.”””

Bingo, but there are many MRA sites where there is a predominantly anti Christian anti socon bent, and the over reaction to those ideologies and beliefs defines the mood on them, openly hostile in that “my rhetoric is more cleverer than yours” kind of way. Its a shame really, because the rhetorical tools of the left resemble so closely those of feminism, relativistic thinking, name calling and shaming, etc. and when they employed by one MRA against another it is not congruent at all.

It begs questions about common origins of thought, what is the end game, are we chasing a liberal dystopia with MRA type equal rights, or are we fighting a feminist dystopia.

conservativation
The so called consevatives need to see the MRA’s Also right and left is a matter of how much control in my view. It looks like people define right and left by what is controled by an overly powerful government. As it stands today liberals and conservatives want to control people with government power and both embrace feminism. Liberals come out and say so and conservative lie to you about freedom. Also for some guy trying to come off as smart you sure seem clueless about why an MRA would hate a social conservative type. MRA’s were the definition of the good man most married worked their ass off had children in general played by the rules. And then were stabbed in the back with laws of misandry. The only law a conservative apposes is abortion and gay marriage and even then a conservative women will actually not vote against abortion but will harp all day about the life of a child. Men are marginalized to second class citezens and have taken survival actions and ratyher than appreciate what is happening nope men get the man up shaming to continue the feeding of our sons to the alligators. MRA’s are just men that have the sense and ability to step back and find out why this is happening.
Dalrock has changed a lot from where he started his blog his understanding and actual looking at what is going on has led him to write about the subjects he is now. The more he studies and finds the more he sounds like the guys on the spearhead or an MGTOW type of guy and he is a pro family and marriage guy. Truth is truth

Grey
You have inferred way too much in my posts.
I do not define right and left by how much control is given the government. In fact I’d have a hard time making a cogent definition of right and left specifically because of what you aptly point out, lots of folks see it lots of ways.

I know precisely why MRA’s hate social conservative types. In fact whats amazing is I said so right in my post. I can fully understand why MRA’s react as they do, that however doesnt give their reason an endorsement. Did you even understand my analogy to how feminists are paranoid about the patriarchy and how left leaning MRA’s are paranoid about the socons?

I am fully aware the moronic Eagle Forum ish social conservative yes dear pandering, and from the Christian right specifically the “women are the weaker vessel” stuff and how all of it leads socons and Christians to a place of gynocentrism. Again, that is all very evident in my post so I’m not quite sure what you are on about.
I am saying that I am a socon Christian and I am not gynocentric like MOST of my colleagues are. I am saying that its ignorance and emotional thinking, as well as man’s natural desire to please women that misleads socons. Add political power with female vote at stake and a dose of fwear of women and you have the mess that predominantly defines socons.

I would say i am almost a perfect fit in Dalrocks camp, and that your view is being skewed by your paranoia about the mere mention of Christian or socon. Maybe read some more posts over time and you will see that I am as well oriented with The Spearhead and MGTOW and you name the site and/or article (Misandry Bubble) Ive read and been present through all of that. My bonafides as MRA purist are fully intact and your entire post was first a bunch of unfounded assumptions then followed by preaching the romper room basics wright to the choir.

Stop letting the mere mention of socon and Christian so badly blur what you read man, yours is a great example of what Im talking about….Im your staunch ally with zero held back.

Looks like we are nearly on the same page. Now beyond argueing who’s fault and my survival technique is better than yours stuff lets see what we may have as a solution. What would be a long term solution or even a way of living that will bring a correction to this madness.

Rmaxd: He has a good woman now so he know what to look for, and he probably already sees them all around him. Of course in his age group, most of them are already married, for life. But they’re around. At first glance they appear to be also-rans and wallflowers, and WAY too many men never glance twice. Good women are NOT usually in the limelight, displaying glitter-adorned cleavage and granting flips of the hair to alpha-wannabes. They’re in the smaller group at the next table over; you might catch them occasionally smirking or rolling their eyes. They’re also quietly circulating around the party, making people feel welcome and facilitating the flow of food and drinks.

I know this because I was a bit of a hybrid. I was an ugly duckling who turned pretty in my late teens. In my early twenties I was the girl the alpha-wannabes fawned over, but not being accustomed to the attention, I wasn’t spoiled. I was surrounded by and frustrated by men who had no use for a good woman. They either ignored or took advantage of my generous, responsible nature. I wondered why they totally ignored the other “good women” around them, who, though pretty, were not particularly vain, and had never developed a “look at me” sense of glamour.

Good women are everywhere, but they don’t stay single for long – good men, often the true alphas, snap them right up. Spoiled princesses and alpha-wannabe mimbos BOTH play on the carousel for years, then one day they wake up and wonder where all the “good ones” went. The “good ones” are happily married to each other.

“Most people in their daily lives do exactly what traditionalists advocate. They balance a range of goods rather than always prioritising autonomy. Both men and women choose to sacrifice a measure of autonomy, for instance, in order to commit to marriage or parenthood (yes, I know, feminists have arranged things so that most of the sacrifice now falls to the man).”

Er, maybe that’s cuz, rather than being exclusively “what the traditionalists advocate” it is what most sensible people realize makes for a better life. Not just marriage, but any kind of “commitment” (whether employment, friendship, parenthood, signing a lease, buying a car, etc.) necessarily reduces “autonomy” to some degree, but has countervailing value of its own. And most people do not value their “autonomy” only as a negative, as the absense of any commitment, but as the ability to choose, with what might be chosen including long term commitments. It is a juvenile notion of freedom or autonomy that restricts itself to simply never committing to anything, as that might compromise the abstract quantum of autonomy remaining. That isn’t autonomy at all.

And, needless to say, other than in your ridiculous, and oft repeated, caricature of liberalism, no such definition is operative.Liberals value the existence of a wide range of choices for every person. And, of course, outside Mark Richardson’s Land of Make Believe, some of those choices involve long term commitment. It would be a cramped and illiberal range of choices, a very narrow definition of freedom and autonomy, if it did not include choices that go beyond what one should have lunch for today.

“If you believe that freedom means individual autonomy and should never be compromised then you have a mighty problem.”

Nobody believes that, other than the strawman “liberal” you spend all of your time “refuting.”

it requires a bunch of cognitive dissonance to look at social progression over the past 50 years, and say the socons have some cabal of influence that needs to be feared.

I cannot stand that socons choose to die on the hills of abortion and gay marriage, things that have an impact on a fraction of the population, while seeing divorce and gynocentrism touching every family directly or tangentially.

Ah, a “conservative” who not only gets it, but who can express his viewpoints in a non-alienating manner.

As you pointed out – a lot of Men’s Rights issues are somewhat conservative in their bent. Maybe that has become the new definition of “socon” – somewhat conservative.

Far from being a “cabal of influence that needs to be feared”, those who are identified as socons are completely, but very noisily, irrelevant. They pick the wrong hill for their cause to die upon, and pursue tactics which cannot work in a political sense. And, because they end up carrying the water for the feminists – they can best be classified as useful idiots.

But, they sure do love to make a lot of noise in their idiocy.

There’s nothing left to “conserve.” It has become “traditional” for large swaths of the population to be the “heroic single moms” that FotF crows about. We are onto raising our 3rd generation of fatherless latchkey kids. That is what is “traditional” now.

The post grerp just linked says that 80 percent of unmarried evangelicals (18 to 29) are sexually active. The slight difference between 80% for evangelicals and 88% for the population as whole tracks very well with Dalrock’s point about the churches which brag that their divorce rate is “only” 38% – a negligible difference between them and the general population.

Now, to me, there is nothing more “traditional” or “conservative” than the rights of a competent and concerned father to have a role in his children’s lives. Yet, as Dalrock pointed out very clearly in this post – the only role that the socons have played in this is as cheerleaders when the legislators pass more laws ensnaring men into the legal or incarceration systems.

“(trial is scheduled for early December)” – There you go – allow a woman to become unhaaaapy, and you will be put on trial.

What really sticks in men’s craws these days is the emerging consensus from socons that “Well, we don’t care if we have made it illegal for you to do what we want you to do – do it anyway. Otherwise, women will become unhaaaaapy.”

Let me put it another way – Bill Price did exactly as the socons claimed that he “should” do. And, now he is on trial for it. I have not, and have lived my life completely free from intervention and control of the family court system.

Think long and hard about that.

Sadly, the socons have settled on one singular strategy – now that people are not doing what they sat by with their thumbs up their butts while it was being criminalized, they figure that if they just escalate their harassment that they can harangue men into “manning up.”

It’s not going to work.

No one is going to support the socon’s cause while their entire lives are being consumed by fighting the legal system that the socons either actively supported or sat by in silent assent as it was being built.

Abortion is murder and calling a legal arrangement between two people of the same sex by the name of marriage (or calling Chaz Bono “a man”) is as nonsensical as cutting off my legs and replacing them with wooden ones and trying call myself “a table”. I support many of the socon’s positions, but am more concerned about trying to survive a legal system they helped create than to trying to lend any energy to fighting their battles with them.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (for as long as the conflict lasts), but the ally of my enemy is not.

it requires a bunch of cognitive dissonance to look at social progression over the past 50 years, and say the socons have some cabal of influence that needs to be feared.

I have another long comment awaiting moderation because it contains links, and it got too long so I didn’t address a particular point related to this. Most socons need to take some sort of remedial “Politics 101″ class. Much of their writing serves as a fascination case study in “How to completely alienate people who actually support your positions.”

I think one of Mark Twain’s stories is applicable here. He tells about going to a tent revival with $2 in his pocket (not an insignificant sum of money in those days) ready to fervently chuck it into the collection plate. The minister – in love with the sound of his own voice – just keeps droning on. We follow the downward course of his fervor as the amount he is willing to contribute. When the collection plate comes around, he steals 10¢ out of it.

The position that literally defines the socon way of thinking is – “I’m right, you are wrong. Your viewpoint has no merit.” To put it biblically, they are absolutely convinced that they have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Their requirements for ideological purity are so stringent that they have no use for anyone who does not completely agree with all 20 or so of their ideological points – 19 out of 20 just don’t count.

Thus, they draw their standards for inclusion so narrowly that they define most people as their ideological enemies in one way or another. The way they define themselves sets them up as the 5% (or 1%) and they act bewildered to discover that 95% of people oppose them.

When a self-described “feminist” is the new socon darling, most people are not stupid enough to miss the implications of that.

When we get to the issue of marriage, tragedy becomes farce. After years of gutting the concept of marriage and turning it into a hollow legal contract which enforces how assets are transferred from the man to the woman, NOW the socons wake up and are trying to enforce some small degree of protectionism by limiting who can participate in that contract.

Dalrock’s post – right here – is showing how the boondoggle of “defending and preserving marriage” has amounted to nothing more than a concerted campaign to force “those evil men” to do a better job of making women haaaapy, or punish them when they don’t.

The minute you push someone out of your political sphere of influence they become your enemy. The position of the socons is that they are so right, and everyone else is so wrong, (gotta love that fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil – must be the sweetest tasting fruit in the entire world) that people “should” be petitioning them to be let back in.

When the other 95% don’t – and go on enjoying their lives to whatever extent they can in the current cultural climate – the socons declare them “sinners” and sound the bugle call for Christian Solders to keep marching onward.

The socons have lost every battle for most of the past 100 years – probably longer.

Nobody lines up to join the losing side.

There are two ways to acquire political power – either by using the political process to build coalitions to support your core values, or by seizing it with guns. The left has mastered the art of the first. If the socons don’t wake up and get a clue about how to not take a crowd of 100 people and turn them into 5 people who completely agree and 95 who think that the socons are dangerous hypocrites, their only recourse is the 2nd strategy.

They had better be sure that they get the gunpowder lit. and keep it, lit this time, Guy.

The Men’s Rights Movement is about … Men’s Rights! And until we get that we will be as lost as this thread. It is not about being Democrats or Republicans, men or women, conservatives or liberals, or some new patriarchy, religious order, or male supremacy. It is about making sure that the thumb of government is not on the scale of justice including having full due process rights, custody rights, the same access to jobs and education (read affirmative action, Title IX, etc.) and the right not to be expected to shoulder a greater societal burden such as taxes, jail, and the like. For those who are hoping that it should be a tool of any party or persuasion or make getting laid easier they are simply deluded.

SoCons are still fighting that last war which is why feminist are so easily able to out fox them. Much of what has occurred over the last 100 years cannot be undone. I would include advances in birth control (the pill), an economy with plenty of indoor non- physically demanding jobs, the right to vote, as some obvious examples. Fair enough. I really do not want to exclude anyone the right to vote. But what I do expect is that when I go in front of a judge regarding my children, life and liberty I am not a second class citizen. The White Knights are no friend of men at this point no matter how much they would like to be seen as such.

This is why feminists hate the MRM (or in Whiskey’s phrase HATE, HATE, HATE). They banded together for their own benefit and do not like the competition. The MRM will be the next war and it won’t be fought on either woman’s terms or the SoCons. The MRM will be conservative only in that men having in power might be perceived as being masculine. Undoubtedly that is how feminists will try to portray us but that is to be expected. After all they are now the ones on the defensive. Feminists too will fight the last war and will use the same tactics they used on the SoCons ultimately to their dismay. They will fight hard to preserve their privileges just as SoCons did to preserve the social order but in the long run they are both doomed to not repeat the past no matter how hard they might try.

Rmaxd: He has a good woman now so he know what to look for, and he probably already sees them all around him. Of course in his age group, most of them are already married, for life. But they’re around. At first glance they appear to be also-rans and wallflowers, and WAY too many men never glance twice. Good women are NOT usually in the limelight, displaying glitter-adorned cleavage and granting flips of the hair to alpha-wannabes. They’re in the smaller group at the next table over; you might catch them occasionally smirking or rolling their eyes. They’re also quietly circulating around the party, making people feel welcome and facilitating the flow of food and drinks.

Good women are everywhere, but they don’t stay single for long – good men, often the true alphas, snap them right up. Spoiled princesses and alpha-wannabe mimbos BOTH play on the carousel for years, then one day they wake up and wonder where all the “good ones” went. The “good ones” are happily married to each other.

I used to believe this, but now I think it’s just an undebunked Cinderella fantasy women with fewer options than they believe they deserve tell themselves.

Of course there are genuinely good women and genuinely good men, and SOMETIMES they find their way to each other. But this is rarely a combination of secretly beautiful, humble, dustbin girl and Prince Charming. They are more likely to be reasonably attractive, reasonably disciplined, still fairly humble people who come from the same sorts of people.

Almost every woman wants her own alpha at some point. This is both natural and media encouraged. She also resents it when instead of going for her he goes for the hot, socially dominant sort who cut her eyeteeth being manipulative and mean to the girls around her so she could have enough experience to do it to men later. What Jane Average tends not to notice is that there are Joe Averages around her who show interest and would naturally like some attention too. Once upon a time she would have read her options more realistically and learned to find happiness (or not) within those boundaries. Now, not so much.

Quite a lot of socially less dominant people aren’t as morally compromised as their social superiors not intrinsically, but because they haven’t had the same opportunities to use and abuse.

“The Men’s Rights Movement is about … Men’s Rights! And until we get that we will be as lost as this thread. It is not about being Democrats or Republicans, men or women, conservatives or liberals, or some new patriarchy, religious order, or male supremacy. It is about making sure that the thumb of government is not on the scale of justice including having full due process rights, custody rights, the same access to jobs and education (read affirmative action, Title IX, etc.) and the right not to be expected to shoulder a greater societal burden such as taxes, jail, and the like. For those who are hoping that it should be a tool of any party or persuasion or make getting laid easier they are simply deluded.”

I totally agree with your substantive agenda, but, to me, it sounds a lot like liberalism. What is that you are talking about here? Rights, freedom and equality. That what’s MRAs are, or should be, fighting for. NOT fools’ errands such as “restoring the partiarchy” and denying women the right to vote. Men and women need to have, and should have, equal rights and responsibilities, to the extent that biology and law can make that possible. Equality and freedom, the hallmark of a real liberal agenda. The feminist agenda is anything but that, it is about total freedom for women, yes, but without responsibility, and total responsibility for men without freedom, and the obvious subsequent lack of equality. The gynocentric feminist movement is no more “liberal” than is the agenda of the Nation of Islam. The real liberal position is NOT one in which the formerly oppressed group now gets to oppress their former oppressors. That applies to race as well as gender. The answer to the Nation of Islam is NOT “White nationalism,” and the answer to gynocentric feminism is NOT “patriarchy.” The correct answer to both is equal rights and maximum freedom consistent with ordered liberty.

So much of the manosphere, in my opinion, is not only barking up the wrong tree, with the calls for stripping women of the right to vote and restoring the patriarchy, but has gone completely off the deep end by getting mixed up with extreme reactionary views relating to race and the economy and so on. We need men’s rights, not racism or Randism.

“SoCons are still fighting that last war which is why feminist are so easily able to out fox them. Much of what has occurred over the last 100 years cannot be undone. I would include advances in birth control (the pill), an economy with plenty of indoor non- physically demanding jobs, the right to vote, as some obvious examples. Fair enough. I really do not want to exclude anyone the right to vote. But what I do expect is that when I go in front of a judge regarding my children, life and liberty I am not a second class citizen. The White Knights are no friend of men at this point no matter how much they would like to be seen as such.”

You are very clearly an orthodox liberal in pursuit of “freedom and equality” – the same pursuit which got us into this mess in the first place.

You wrote in defence of “freedom as autonomy” that:

And most people do not value their “autonomy” only as a negative, as the absense of any commitment, but as the ability to choose, with what might be chosen including long term commitments.

But the problem is that if politics is about maximising autonomy, and autonomy is held to be the quality that defines us as humans, then people will say “I want traditional good X redefined in ways that don’t compromise my autonomy”.

And that means, for instance, when it comes to marriage that we end up with easy divorce laws, the deferral of marriage in favour of a single girl lifestyle, the making of women increasingly independent of men within family life via careerism and paid maternity leave benefits, the acceptance of single motherhood as a lifestyle choice propped up by state welfare and IVF access and so on. These all represent a redefining of family to allow a greater “freedom as autonomy” for women.

And don’t tell me these things were brought about by Laura Wood or Phyllis Schlafly. They were brought about by a liberal political class following the same political principles that you yourself advocate.

I can accept criticism of socons for not being a strong enough force to resist the liberal changes to society; I can accept criticism of evangelicals for sucking up to women too much and focusing too narrowly on abortion and gay marriage; and I can accept that whiteknighting is part of the mix that prevents right-wing men from opposing feminism effectively.

But what I can’t accept is the attempt from some liberal MRAs to turn reality on its head by claiming that the few traditionalists who did attempt to resist liberal changes to society were actually the perpetrators of those changes and the source of the problems we have to confront.

What liberal MRAs need to do is to think through why a liberal society ended up as it did and how the philosophy might be modified or reformed to try to prevent similar outcomes in the future.

Great post. Particularly on the example of rape, I have always found the weird behavior we have as a culture towards it. I’d never excuse the behavior of men who rape women, and I’m all in favor of the death penalty for such a crime (there used to be one, prior to Kinsey and the sexual revolution in many places).

It seems however today that some people are no longer able to make the connection between behavior and consequences. As you note, there are cries of “blaming the victim” if you dare suggest that a woman’s foolish behavior contributed to her getting attacked. As if getting falling down drunk and wandering around half naked in a bad part of town and having nothing happen to you is some sort of privilege they are entitled too.

Maybe it is a result of a general victim mentality in our culture has, where bad behavior is to often excused and any suggestion of the woman’s contribution to an attack via stupid behavior somehow excuses the behavior of the attacker. It doesn’t, but I guess given some of the other insane legal defenses we have heard recently, it might actually be allowed to fly.

“What liberal MRAs need to do is to think through why a liberal society ended up as it did and how the philosophy might be modified or reformed to try to prevent similar outcomes in the future.”

I am afraid the cat is already out of the bag, and I don’t mean that cynically. My belief is that a strong well organized MRM will have a moderating effect on society. Right now, there is almost no restraint on women’s behavior. MRM would be a beneficial counterweight to organized feminism which sees no reason not to push the envelope. The result is that there are very few negative consequences for women who behave badly.

Barring a return to “at fault” divorces, if we had shared equal parenting (custody) laws we would see fewer divorces and a more equal financial responsibility when they did occur. We would also probably see more marriages due to the fact that they would no longer just a financial trap for men. One of the prime motivating factors behind why women file for divorce is that they have certainty that they will end up with custody and they have a financial safety net provided gratis. Now women file 75% or more of all divorces. How about the lack of due process for men in rape and domestic violence cases? The VAWA simply opened the door for more false accusations by making sure women had more legal protections than men. I don’t know if demanding my full constitutional rights makes me a conservative or liberal. These things should not matter whether I am a PUA or Social Conservative. They are fundamental to all of us.

“But the problem is that if politics is about maximising autonomy, and autonomy is held to be the quality that defines us as humans, then people will say ‘I want traditional good X redefined in ways that don’t compromise my autonomy’”.

Here you are ignoring, as you always do, my claims that “autonomy” is not the quality that defines us as humans (again, see the case of the retarded or the senile, I don’t know of any lliberals who see such folks as non human) and must include the freedom to make long term commitments. Plenty of liberals that I know are married, have children, sign long term contracts, take out thirty year mortgages, and so on. They do not see this as inconsitent with their liberal philosophy. So they are all either suffering from cognitive dissonance, or your idiosyncratic definition of liberalism is wrong. I think the latter is correct. Maximizing autonomy is NOT synomous with refusing to make long term commitments. Autonomy must include the ability to make those commitments, or it is simply the juvenile “autonomy” to decide whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

And, funny too, if you are going to blame liberals for making marriage non autonomy compromising, don’t you also have to “blame” them for not letting men out of their responsibility to support their children? How does that maximize autonomy? The point isn’t autonomy or no autonomy, the point is rights and responsibilities. What has happened is that, in the effort to redress past grievances, interest groups have pushed for non liberal solutions. They have given women all the rights and relieved them of all the repsonsibilities. And, yes, liberals have gone along with them, in many cases. They have supported affirmative action and the gynocentric feminist agenda. I don’t deny that. I’m just saying that that is misplaced liberalism (much as you are saying that white knighting so called trad cons are actually betraying conservative principles).

“You are very clearly an orthodox liberal in pursuit of ‘freedom and equality’ – the same pursuit which got us into this mess in the first place.”

I am an orthodox liberal. And I do, quite proudly, no scare quotes needed, support freedom and equality. As for that having got us into this mess, I think that is simplistic. I think the Civil Rights Movement was a good thing, in that expanded freedom and equality for all. I think old school feminism was a good thing, for the same reasons. But, as with anything else, things can go too far in one direction. Demands for equality and freedom become demands for special privileges, and, if met, then overall freedom and equality suffers. But, just as opponents of Affirmative Action couch their counter demands in the language of ortodox liberalism (equality, individual rights), so should MRAs. Men need equal rights and the same freedoms that women have. That sounds like liberalism to me.

“But what I can’t accept is the attempt from some liberal MRAs to turn reality on its head by claiming that the few traditionalists who did attempt to resist liberal changes to society were actually the perpetrators of those changes and the source of the problems we have to confront.”

Er, I am not saying that. I agree with you that the changes, many of which were bad, were done under the banner of liberalism and that conservatives were the only ones to oppose them.

“What liberal MRAs need to do is to think through why a liberal society ended up as it did and how the philosophy might be modified or reformed to try to prevent similar outcomes in the future.”

I don’t disagree with this either. Liberalism must confront the fact that it can be, and has been, “mau mau’ed” by special interest groups who are not, or, at a minimum, no longer, fighting for freedom and equality, but for special privileges. It needs to recognize that every demand made by a group purporting to represent folks who were indeed discriminated against and oppressed in the past is not necessarily a just one.

On the other hand, I don’t see what good is going to come from calling for an excessive pendulum swing in the other direction, so that some of the old oppressions can be reinstated. Women should have the right to vote. They should have the right to pursue whateve career they desire. They should have equality of opportunity. They should have the right to defer, or even forego, marriage, if they choose. They should have reproductive freedom. And so on. And so should men. Marriage should not be a shit deal for either gender. The MRA movement is going get nowhere if it calls for women to go back to the kitchen, to shut up and do what men tell them to do, to give up control over their own bodies, and so on. The only way I see it succeeding if it, like the opponents of Affirmative Action, couches it’s demands in the language of rights, freedom and equality. In other words, in liberal language.

“I am an orthodox liberal. And I do, quite proudly, no scare quotes needed, support freedom and equality”

people arent equal, men and women arent equal, and any/every attemt to inflict equality on humans = totalitarianism

“I think the Civil Rights Movement was a good thing, in that expanded freedom and equality for all.”

nonsense… it merely made permanent scapegoats out of boys and men, esp white boys and men, particularly those who can’t defend themselves w/money or nepotic power

“I think old school feminism was a good thing, for the same reasons.”

feminism is all its forms and incarnations, from Eden forward, was and is hateful and demonic

“Women should have the right to vote”

yeah, just look at the results… wonderful, eh?

“On the other hand, I don’t see what good is going to come from calling for an excessive pendulum swing in the other direction, so that some of the old oppressions can be reinstated.”

anyone believing females (vs males) were EVER “oppressed” in the west has already tapped out the kool aid keg

once the gynogulag got folks to buy into the “historical oppression of women” lie, the door was wide open for the endless fem-tyranny the world is now undergoing

it’s the foundational lie that makes every anti-male action and “law” not only defensible, but necessary and “progressive”

“The MRA movement is going get nowhere if it calls for women to go back to the kitchen, to shut up and do what men tell them to do, to give up control over their own bodies, and so on”

you’re wrong, it’s going to succeed on those elements, and far more besides — not in a spirit of retribution and REAL oppression, but in a spirit of restoring masculinity, family, and love of god, and in ensuring that the global matriarchy never, ever rises again to enslave us and our sons

Your beef is apparently, with the whole libeal project, not merely feminism. What it is you want in its place is hard for me to tell. How, without resorting to oppression, are you going to wrest the vote from women? How are you going to undo what I see as the good results of the CRM (racial equality before the law, equality of opportunity, etc) without some sort of widescale, reactionary counter revolution? Perhaps you think the world was oh so very much better when women and racial minorities couldn’t vote, or have any othe political rights. Well, I don’t, and am not afraid to say so. Easy enough to simply claim that anyone who disagrees with you has “drunken the kool aid,” next you’ll be saying that I swallowed the wrong color pill, too. Whatever. Do you want to go back to the nineteen fifties? Or is that not good enough? After all, that Jefferson guy and the Declaration of the Rights of Man said something about all men being created equal, so I guess they got it wrong too. So, that means we should go back to pre 1776 and 1789 thinking? Right? Monarchies? Hereditary aristocracies? Established churches?

Mark Richardson is right about at least one thing. We live in a liberal society. And even most so called conservatives are really only conservative in that they want to retain and protect that liberal order. For my money, the liberal order is the best that has ever existed on Earth. The societies of North America, the Anglosphere and Western Europe are the most free, the most open to talent from whatever source, the most innovative, the most, etc, etc,…simply the best. I have no desire to revert to some pre Englightenment regime, and I doubt most people, including most MRAs, do either. For the MRA agenda to succeed, it must be couched in the language of liberalism, otherwise it will come across as your post does, with a strong whiff of authoritarianism, of theocracy, of hierarchy. And the only way to put that across will be out of the barrel of a gun.

“Barring a return to ‘at fault’ divorces, if we had shared equal parenting (custody) laws we would see fewer divorces and a more equal financial responsibility when they did occur. We would also probably see more marriages due to the fact that they would no longer just a financial trap for men. One of the prime motivating factors behind why women file for divorce is that they have certainty that they will end up with custody and they have a financial safety net provided gratis. Now women file 75% or more of all divorces. How about the lack of due process for men in rape and domestic violence cases? The VAWA simply opened the door for more false accusations by making sure women had more legal protections than men. I don’t know if demanding my full constitutional rights makes me a conservative or liberal.”

Again, Prof, you can eschew the label, but listen to the language that you use….”equal…equal..,due process…more legal protections than….constitutional rights….” That is the language of liberalism. You are calling for equal rights, legal equality and the protection of due process and the rights of the accused. These are the hallmarks of the liberal order. When folks like MR and Ray talk about conservatism, they do NOT mean the preservation of the features of the liberal order, as most conservatives do. Rather they seek a reversion to some pre liberal order, one based on blood, religion, monarchy, aristocracy,patriarchy, theocracy, or some combination of the above. And, too often, in my opinion, the manosphere gets caught up in these goals (which, again, in my view, are not only unobtainable but also totally undesirable), rather than the obvious and simple goals of having legal and social equality of the sexes, with maximum freedom for all, consistent with a society based on ordered liberty.

Just a thought. I suspect a return to the old “liberal order” may be difficult, because terms have changed. After all, the liberal creed that founded the US was a commitment to the idea that men should be free to live as they ought, but over time that has morphed into a credo that still calls itself “liberalism” that demands that people should be free to live as they want. There are very very different conceptions of liberty though and I would argue entirely incompatible ones.

Could someone define Socon for me? I’ve been reading as much of the manosphere (Dalrock, Roosh, Roissy, Badger, and some more) as I can in the past month, but somehow haven’t really come across this term. A good amount of the last comments here didn’t make sense without knowing what kind of group that word is referring to.

“I suspect a return to the old ‘liberal order’ may be difficult, because terms have changed. After all, the liberal creed that founded the US was a commitment to the idea that men should be free to live as they ought, but over time that has morphed into a credo that still calls itself “liberalism” that demands that people should be free to live as they want.”

I disagree. The USA, as per the Constitution, was founded on the notion of pluralism, on the notion that there were differing conceptions of what men “ought” to do. And a system was set up that allowed men to broker and dicker and compromise as to what “ought” to be done at the Federal level, while also allowing them to determine separately what ought to be done at the State level, more or less free of national uniformity. The whole Madisonian concept was one of balancing interests, which were frankly admitted to be divergent, rather than imposing a central conception of what ought to be. EG….. No national religion. No religous test for Federal officeholders. No oath required for officeholding (affirmation was OK too). The preamble sets out only general, more or less contentless goal for the new government, not a rigid plan of what ought to be. And the Bill of Rights was dedicated to preserving individual freedom. Nowhere was some general notion of confining men to a predetermined notion of what they “ought” to be codified. Rather, the ideal was that men should be free to do what they wanted, as long as they didn’t directly harm others.

In reading Dalrock’s original article, one might come to the controversial conclusion that democracy has a life cycle, and that allowing women to vote eventually transitions any democracy into a feminist police state.

*gasp*!! What a politically incorrect statement!

But Dalrock’s article does as good a job of explaining this process as any I have seen.

I think we may be suffering from a difference in terminology and word use. As we probably roughly agree I think.

The US constitution is predicated on the idea (AFAICS) that what is to be protected by the state is basically “life, liberty and property” (to use Locke’s formulation and not that execrable alternative they went with instead, its main failing I think) and that you were at liberty to live as you “want” provided you did not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another. Sadly that principle seems to have been perverted, and the ought that it strongly implies has been transformed into a “right” to live at the expense of others property rights, and “liberty” seems to include a notion of a “right not to be offended” if you belong to certain “privileged” classes etc. Don’t get me started on the whole life thing.

Does it turn out we do agree after all? Or at least more closely than originally appeared to be the case.

“Nowhere was some general notion of confining men to a predetermined notion of what they “ought” to be codified. Rather, the ideal was that men should be free to do what they wanted, as long as they didn’t directly harm others.”

I disagree. There absolutely were numerous ideals, but they were safeguarded by culture, not politics. The early colonists would never have tolerated gay marriage, for example. Over the years, American culture has become increasingly fractured and “diverse” and now means little other than “do what you want to do, as long as you pay taxes and don’t hurt anyone.” But that doesn’t mean that is the way America was at the beginning.

“The US constitution is predicated on the idea (AFAICS) that what is to be protected by the state is basically ‘life, liberty and property’ (to use Locke’s formulation and not that execrable alternative they went with instead, its main failing I think) and that you were at liberty to live as you ‘want’ provided you did not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another.”

Well, first of all, the Constitution did NOT use what I think you are referring to as “that execrable alternative,” ie “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the Declaration of Independence did, and the DOI, for all of its importance, is not really law. The Constitution, in the Fifth Amendment and then later in the Fourteenth Amendment, did forbid the Federal and State governments, respectively, from taking a person’s life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Federal Constitution does not really state that an individual’s liberty was limited by the life, liberty and property of another individual, although, of course, that was understood as the basic formulation of ordered liberty.

“Sadly that principle seems to have been perverted, and the ought that it strongly implies has been transformed into a ‘right’ to live at the expense of others property rights, and ‘liberty’ seems to include a notion of a ‘right not to be offended’ if you belong to certain ‘privileged’ classes etc.”

I think there are several things wrong with that statement. First of all, what is protected from infringement by the government is life, liberty and property without due process of law. What due process of law consists of is open to debate. But it has never been held to mean that the government cannot tax your property and use it for purposes, such as relief for the poor, that you might happen to disagree with. Poor relief laws, and the taxes to support them, were well known in colonial America and in the early republic, at the colonial/state, county and local levels. It was NOT seen as a denial of property without due process to collect properly enacted taxes and use the proceeds to help others. Secondly,even today there is no “right” (in the sense of a constitutional right) to live at other’s expense. There are statutes, which are open to repeal, that do provide relief to the poor. Thirdly, I don’t really think, even in statutory law, even today, that there is any widespread notion of a “right” not to be offended, no matter what allegedly privileged class you belong to.

I think folks have a notion that early America was some sort of high water mark of libertarian/propertarian thinking, and that the legal regime of that time was strictly of the “night watchmen,” Manchester liberal variety. But this was not the case. The colonies and then the States were the main locus of government. The Federal constitution put almost no limits on the States. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. There was as yet no Fourteenth Amendment. And the colonies and then the States took an activist, communitarian view of government. Wage and price controls, aggressive use of eminent domain powers, poor relief, and so on and so forth, were widely practiced in the colonial and early Republic periods. And these were not seen as violative of the notion that life, liberty and property were to be protected.

“Does it turn out we do agree after all? Or at least more closely than originally appeared to be the case.”

No, I’m afraid that we don’t agree very much. It was really only in the Nineteenth Century that extreme notions of libertarianism/propertarianism became prevalent, and were, to some extent, enshrined in constitutional law. And, at that, the enshrinement was anything but total and was not long lasting. I think instead that the liberal project has included from the beginning the possibility of laws (at least with regard to taxation and property and poor relief) that you are objecting to now as some sort of latter day fall from grace.

Zed
“”Ah, a “conservative” who not only gets it, but who can express his viewpoints in a non-alienating manner. “”

Thanks

That why the greyghost post shocked me so much. I am not here to defend socon positions collectively, I am not here to convert anyone to the amalgam of socon beliefs. I am not suggesting socon as it exists today is any kind of fit with MRM….sheesh thats silly to even ponder.
I am suggesting that the mere mention of socon hot send the locals to gather a posse, maybe there are a few who like me align perfectly with MRM and see the world with the red pill or whatever moniker you choose to hang on the eye opening realization.
I would argue any individual socon issue that I support, in and of itself and not related to mens issues, but thats not the point here, or on any of the MRM sites I frequent. Yet my screenname and some of the beliefs I hold that truly have nothing to do with MRM matters send people into hysterics, angry venom filled attacks that are unfounded. A socon MRA is not necessarily like a so called “woman who gets it”, where if you peel enough layers off you will find a feminist in there most times.

Grergp,
Interesting point, and true. What I realized after I married a true alpha, was that all those alpha-wannabes WERE the Average Joes. They were young and jockeying for position, and many of them had real potential (as did many of the less showy ones. Not that I noticed.) I always suspected that if I’d met my husband during his twenties, he would have been among them, and not at his best. He wasn’t born an alpha, he was born with alpha potential, and he had to mature into the role. I was very lucky to meet him when I did, and although I’ve loved and respected him from the beginning, it took me years to realize just how lucky I was. When I met him I was immature and still hoping I could have the fairy tale. I had plenty of growing up to do, and I’m not ashamed to give him credit for his influence on me. Had I married one of those “pretty boys,” I would NOT be the person I am today. To be perfectly honest, I didn’t think he was an aplha because he wasn’t a “player.” I was leery of dating him at first, but I allowed myself to be led by his quiet unassuming self-confidence. It took me-the-know-it-all a while to realize that my understanding of “alpha” was based on the fairy tale model, and he was indeed the real thing. I’ve been known to call him a stealth-alpha, but the truth is he wasn’t sneaking up on anybody. I was the one who didn’t recognize him for what he is. Man am I glad I went with my gut!

“I disagree. There absolutely were numerous ideals, but they were safeguarded by culture, not politics. The early colonists would never have tolerated gay marriage, for example. Over the years, American culture has become increasingly fractured and ‘diverse’ and now means little other than ‘do what you want to do, as long as you pay taxes and don’t hurt anyone.’ But that doesn’t mean that is the way America was at the beginning.”

True, the culture was more restrictive, and not only gay marriage but interracial marriage would not have been tolerated either. But the legal and constitutional structure that was put into place was very much based on the notion of ordered liberty. As for “diversity” and “fracturing,” the USA in 1790 had a population that was twenty per cent African in origin, the highest its ever been, and large numbers of Native Americans as well. The European derived population consisted of, besides folks from the British Isles, numerous Germans and Dutch, and a fair number of French, Swedes and other nationalities. Even the British population was divided into numerous cultures. Fischer, in his famous work “Albion’s Seed,” identified no less than four main British cultures (the New England Puritans, deriving mostly from SE England, the Cavaliers of Virginia and Maryland, deriving from SW England, the Quakers of the Delaware Valley ((PA, DE, NJ)) from North England, and the so called “Scots Irish,” actually deriving from the Border Country of England and found throughout the frontier in America), and that was without even considering the British in New York and South Carolina and Georgia. Religious diversity abounded in early America, with not only every kind of Protestant sect (Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Quaker, etc.), but plenty of Catholics and some Jews, including Sephardic Jews, as well. And numerous folks who held beliefs indigenous to America and Africa. Besides English, Dutch and German, and indigenous African and American languages were spoken. New York City was already a melting pot, with a dozen or more languages spoken. The economy was incredibly diverse, not only from region to region but even within the larger colonies/States.

The USA has always been diverse, it’s just that at the beginning one ethic group (or one set of such groups) monopolized all or most power and property. Again, I much prefer what our society has evolved into, with no one culture so dominant as to reduce the others to slavery or death. And that society has evolved within the legal and philosophical tradition of liberalism, which was in place from at least the latter half of the Eighteenth Century.

my screenname and some of the beliefs I hold that truly have nothing to do with MRM matters send people into hysterics, angry venom filled attacks that are unfounded.

Well, the point I think Dalrock was trying to make with this post was to lay out the history which makes many people perceive this as a war zone and both feminists and socons as allied enemy combatants. You enter a theater of battle flying the enemy’s flag, and, yes, it is highly likely that you will get shot at.

This conversation isn’t all about you, and few people will have the time or patience to engage you and figure out what your particular brand of social conservatism is like. All these discussions about what a true Scotsman (conservative) thinks reminds me of the feminists who plop themselves into the middle of an ongoing conversation, make sure that their screen name screams “feminist”, and then goes on to say “let me tell you about MY feminism,” Political movements are not made of idiosyncratic individual preferences.

If someone identifies themselves with a political group, it makes no sense to then launch into trying to turn the conversation into being about themselves and why they don’t actually subscribe to the political tenets of the group with which they have identified themselves.

This is what I mean about “Remedial Politics 101″ – the best way to start a conversation off on the right foot is not by jumping into it and spitting in the faces of the people there.

I see the situation we are in now as being like the socons and feminists have colluded in hunting down and killing all the members of the volunteer fire department – and now their house is on fire. That walking hemorrhoid, Bill Bennett, looks around at all the corpses and graves and instructs those left standing to “man up.”

Instead of the rescue he expects, he finds himself in the middle of a hail of broken beer bottles.

There you go, assuming the motive. I am not here to explain my type of socon whatsoever. Im here for lots of reasons, most of which have ONLY to do with the fact that i align with MRM and count myself in the number, fully, not “with exceptions”.
I am nothing like the feminist who comes in to say look at me and my brand. In fact the reason I even mention these things is a response, not a thought initiated by me, and my response is perfectly necessary as illustrated ironically by the post you just made above. If you (collectively) are that shallow or lazy of thinkers (and for the record I think quite the contrary, but see a blind spot right here) that a screenname or professed ideology (in part) causes all sorts of inferred things to put between my lines when you read, you are not processing things objectively. Its a huge waste of MRA time to call out another MRA based on your inferred beliefs, and waste time then clearing that up….oddly to conclude that I came to attract attention and explain myself. What I am explaining is a big blind spot that would benefit the entire movement to clear it up.
Can you separate things? Clearly you can. Because what is the difference between identifying as a liberal and then claiming to oppose gay marriage, and identifying as a conservative and saying I dont give a tinkers damn about gay marriage?
You bet there are socons as enemy combatants. Here’s the operative point….some huge percentage of the most ideologically pure MRA’s were once enemy combatants. Few come to see truth without experiencing its horrors personally, id think we’d like to see less of that and more folks organically seeing truth. To do that you needn’t coddle ANY political ideology, however, you needn’t knee jerk deride an individual by inferring things about them, in this case especially because the numbers don’t even justify it.

On ideologically pure MRA’s, as an aside, Im finding a correlation, the more clever a person’s manner of discourse, the more they are perceived to be ideologically pure MRA’s. In other words, the better they blend wry wit, sarcasm, and in your face rebuking, the more ideologically pure they are perceived. Just an aside because anyone can see that one of the very most difficult challenges that faces any group of average or above intelligence men will always be intellectual peacocking.

Finally, I’ve not spit in any one’s face. Ive been posting a couple of weeks, and I see a blind spot that is excluding men who are fully aligned. Ive been reading and writing along with this movement for 7 years now, researching and active in my realm and I am definitely up to speed. And I find it fascinating that we can all agree on the bizarre tactics that women, even those who play NAWALT or claim, as you say, look at me and my feminism, the tactics they use rhetorically and how nonsensical it is. THEY infer into our statements, they insert absolutes and extremes into our statements to turn and rebut the inferred absolute or extreme. These are maddening tactics, and we know them when we see them.
But on this ideological thing, the MRM can be guilty of doing precisely the same thing, some kind of emotional trigger is causing misinterpretation of words and discourse.

And Zed is right, true conservatives, those that have a specific set of beliefs and stick by them without moving to where others tell them to move, are very hard to find these days. Most conservatives are just progressives in sheep’s clothing that are simply moving the slider to the left slower than the liberals. It’s like a genocidal maniac. You can be Hitler and do it fast or you can do it over a long period. However, genocide is still genocide and the outcome is the same. I think that is the important distinction.

Therefore, when most see a name with “conserve” in it, they immediately think of Bill Bennett or Republicans. They are not conservatives in the true sense of the word but instead are simply behind on the times compared to the liberal counterparts.

Just one more thought.
Socons are ignorant, generally. They are not steeped in a gender world view, they are naive to it, to the reality. They are therefore useful idiots. Its a different status, no less a threat, but different than willful anti-males. Why? Because they honestly are stuck right where they were in high school panting in the back seat with a gal and saying “Im not like the other guys”. That line WORKED, and as he slid the pants off for the now willing girl who wanted to have sex with the guy who was “not after one thing”….he was rewarded for his ambivalence to other men, the courage it took to be different with all that testosterone peer pressure…….whatever.
Now, he may not be trying to slide the panties off a cheerleader, but he damn sure is still stuck in wanting female approval, no matter what, he is sold out to pats on the back by women, be they written, verbal, or physical. So he is “pro-woman”, like a dog is “pro-owner” when the owner is eating a burger.
The socon male has a few personally arrived at convictions, and the rest come from some woman who tells him if she wants his opinion she will give it to him. He is pathetic in that way, and at once sees himself at the apogee of heroic.
Why is that an important distinction?

Because his beliefs do not have his own best interest in mind at all. The most dogged socon MRA’s (please allow the term) I know are the ones who were hoisted by their own petard. They woke up sca-roood by the poor weaker vessel(s) they have been pandering to all along. It is the most violent of matrix red pill experiences to go from socon ignorance to this truth. But its worth the pain.

These are left therefore with every aspect of being a socon minus anything that panders to women, which doesnt mean at all, hey look at me and let me explain my subset, not at all, it doesnt mean to attract attention whatsoever. It means to and should blend right in because its exactly the same as everyone else here and assuming anything about it is a waste of time and emotion. The man is here to be an MRA, not to oppose abortion or gay marriage or any other political manifestation of values.

Most important is that these enemies are more convertible, because the portion of their beliefs that pertain to mens issues is presently feeding their ego, if shown that its instead making them look pathetic, its different than wrenching someone from closely held core beliefs, it finds synergy with a mans pride, a powerful motivator in and of itself.

Fe Hater, I have no idea about “most conservatives”….you say they are not really different than liberals but are just behind the times…is there value judgment in that? i cannot tell if you are suggesting that libarlism is the common good(est) and that conservatives are finally on the bandwagon just lagging behind, or are you saying the opposite.
I agree there are few differences out there, in the halls of power etc etc. SO, I really do not care to be honest, from an MRA standpoint I do not flippin care! I dont care what their ideology, if they are gynocentric, Im against them, and thats the point. Im not any different than any other MRA except I will say I am far LESS concerned with political orientation that those who seem so exercised by the scent of conservatism. What the hell difference does it make, there is them (gynocentric) and there is us.

Cant it be that simple instead of this fixation of gynocentric bad but socon REALLY REALLY bad. They are the same, maybe thats the crux of my issue, like there is a special loathing for socons that even supersedes the loathing of feminism, causing folks to go irrationally off course over what is just another member of the enemy, no better no worse. The fixation with same blocks what few socons may be lurking that are sympathetic and perhaps MRA neophytes. (before someone throws out the predictable retort that we dont dilute our values to accommodate newbies, that’s not what I said)

Think of it this way, how do you (collective) want things to be perceived, as a liberal who opposes conservatism and just happens to be an MRA, or, as an MRA who just happens to be liberal? What is the focus? What should the focus be? There are plenty of places to dissect political ideologies, fewer places to dissect gender dysfunction, and fewer places still where GASP! its even possible for the opposing political ideologies to share perfectly, no exceptions, common ground.

conservativation, it comes back again and again to “putting on the glasses” as Dalrock called it. Recognizing the true nature of men and women. Realizing that women are not “men who can have babies”, they have different wiring, different motivations, and perceive reality in different ways. You may not have seen this posting that is quite illustrative of the idea of “the glasses”.

One of the ironies of the social conservative (both the “law is the law” and “follow God’s way” varieties) is the cognitive dissonance they have to endure. If one believes in law ‘n order, then the fact that the US legal system is heavily tilted against men and for women has to be just plain wrong. And I’m no Bible scholar, but as a young man I was warned by some older men about bad women – and the examples used were Potiphar’s wife & Jezebel. Some time in the last year or so I read the story of Bathsheba, David and Uriah – a story that makes sense only in terms of female hypergamy. Anonymous Age 68 posted some proverbs about contentious women on various sites. Those cannot be the only references to women in the Bible, or at least in the old testament, either. So the religious SoCons have in their Bibles evidence of how women really are, and what to do about that – and they don’t seem to understand a single bit of it.

SoCons should be among the solidest of advocates for men’s rights. They should be among the angriest of righteously angry men. But they aren’t, and all I can figure is it is a combination of willful self-delusion, romanticism / pedestalization of women, group-thinking…and probably something else that hasn’t yet occurred to me. But absent the glasses, SoCons are basically at the beck and call of feminists. All that is required is a dog-whistle of “For the Children” most of the time, and if that doesn’t work a good, healthy, dose of “PROTECT WOMEN!” screamed in their ears will work every time. Every, single time.

Don’t believe me? Go look at video of the Slutwalks. Count the number of SoCon women who are counterprotesting – oh, wait, you can’t. Because there weren’t any.

Let me explain my view point. Forget about thinking of liberals and conservatives as people with right or wrong beliefs. No, conservatives can have a belief system, any belief system as long as they stick to it without changing all the time and they generally keep the status quo. The only time conservatives should change their beliefs is when they are shown actual objective evidence to the contrary, not based on emotion mind you but in fact. As a person who sticks to my beliefs I can acknowledge that certain beliefs would be out of date, no longer needed and such. That’s what causes people to question themselves and their society and can cause society to move forward and become more civilised. The problem with liberals or progressives is that they never sit still, they are always on the move, last years liberals are now “bigots” in their minds. Everything is based on the emotion, the feeling, the “oneness” that comes from their message. It’s not based in fact or theory or on anything objective. They are on their never ending quest to achieve Nirvana, utopia or whatever other enlightened era they long for. They are like leaves in the wind, they blow in whichever direction their moral decay takes them.

The meaning of “conservative” in today’s political speak, at least in my opinion, is a liberal behind the time, or a liberal in every other belief except one or two sticky points, i.e. abortion. If you took abortion away, they would merely be liberals. Therefore, when I see someone call themselves a “conservative” I don’t look at their name, I look at their beliefs and question them on that. If the stick to their theme and don’t duck and dive, they can actually call themselves a conservative.

Actually conservativation, many of us could be considered classical Liberals. You know why? Well…We are questioning the conventionally held wisdoms of today and we are questioning this socially accepted “truth” based on reason, logic and facts rather than emotion. However, many of us also realise the absolute truth of what our forefathers knew and held dear, so in that aspect we are true conservatives. If it wasn’t for the absolute monstrosity of feminism and all the other supposed ‘isms, it would be a very exciting time, with people discussing truth in a logical and ruthless manner.

The internet has also opened another door for us. We now get to discuss these issues with people from across the globe and can share our knowledge with each other without stepping on the other person’s proverbial toe.

I think the funniest part of all of this is exactly how history repeats itself, just in a different era and method. All those scientists during the Renaissance period of Europe could probably tell us a great many stories that would sound exactly the same as ours. Trying to reason with people who cannot see past their own noses and suffering the wrath of the powers of the time. Theirs being the Church, ours being the establishment.

Cant it be that simple instead of this fixation of gynocentric bad but socon REALLY REALLY bad. They are the same, maybe thats the crux of my issue, like there is a special loathing for socons that even supersedes the loathing of feminism, causing folks to go irrationally off course over what is just another member of the enemy, no better no worse. The fixation with same blocks what few socons may be lurking that are sympathetic and perhaps MRA neophytes. (before someone throws out the predictable retort that we dont dilute our values to accommodate newbies, that’s not what I said)

You have to remember, some people have actually been really badly burnt by the current dynamic between the sexes. Whether it be be a loss of their wife through divorce, their children through a lengthy custody battle, their livelihood or lots of really, really bad experiences with the opposite sex. Some men even being placed in jail due to no fault of theirs, just a whiny lover. You have to understand something, once those things happen to a person, their capacity to respect a conversation with someone that could possibly be in the enemy’s camp becomes intolerable and unbearable. They feel emotion too. Big surprise.

I’m trying to give you a hint on how to fit into a conversation and battle that has been raging for 40 years, and which has devolved into a sort of “gender trench war” in which both sides are deeply dug into their positions, surrounded by barbed wire, defended by machine guns.

You come in here flying the enemy flag, and act bewildered that you get shot at.

All I can do is give you the information – it is up to you to figure out how to put it to use.

Think about the story of Pat Tillman. He gave up a lucrative career as a pro football player, and was killed by “friendly fire.” He “did the right thing” and “fought for his country” and “we” shot him in the back.

That is the socon way. They are cannibals. They only destroy the people who believe as they do, and do as they dictate those people “should” do.

If you want to seriously participate in the conversation, change your screen name to something which does not identify you with a political ideology which many people here see at the enemy. Then, get up to speed on the conversation, learn the background, identify the core concepts, and then think if you have anything to add other than listening to the sound of your own voice.

The good lord gave you two ears and two eyes but only one mouth for a reason.

“The meaning of “conservative” in today’s political speak, at least in my opinion, is a liberal behind the time, or a liberal in every other belief except one or two sticky points, i.e. abortion. If you took abortion away, they would merely be liberals. Therefore, when I see someone call themselves a “conservative” I don’t look at their name, I look at their beliefs and question them on that. If the stick to their theme and don’t duck and dive, they can actually call themselves a conservative.”

That. was. amazing.

Oops, I mean, “You can SAY that??? Out loud??? People look at me like I have two heads when I question their conservatism!

Your post was TO me, and AT me….are you just addicted to bickering? Sheesh, shaming tactic “making it all about me”….anyway, whatever hint you feel I need, and the information you are giving, please consider it given (or more accurately, I have it already, but thanks)…then we can leave me out of the discourse.
Now I will write about ideology, if you disagree, please do not resort to saying its about me. If thats the case then every post here is about the poster. Cheap….shaming is cheap.

Fem Hater
I’m one of those that have been badly hurt, Im also friends with a handful, we’ve been on the receiving end of each and every injustice the family court can mete out (note to zeb, this is for anecdotal example, not to talk about me…there is a difference, and a point) Socons who have been damaged and hurt thus and had their force fed red pill make great MRA’s. All the indictments of socons being made, Ive agree with 100%, how anyone can continue to, here, now, feel otherwise is a symptom of the problem I have attempted to point out IN GENERAL, meaning the problem is general, not about me (zeb, not a problem that has to do with me)

Yes classic liberalism, count me in. I fully agree with all charges against the word conservative and that conservatives are in a state of compromise constantly, never standing for much at all. I keep saying I agree with all of this. (zeb, his post was to me, so telling him how I feel is germane and not “about me”)

Anonymous Reader This comment:”SoCons should be among the solidest of advocates for men’s rights. They should be among the angriest of righteously angry men. But they aren’t, and all I can figure is it is a combination of willful self-delusion, romanticism / pedestalization of women, group-thinking…and probably something else that hasn’t yet occurred to me. But absent the glasses, SoCons are basically at the beck and call of feminists. All that is required is a dog-whistle of “For the Children” most of the time, and if that doesn’t work a good, healthy, dose of “PROTECT WOMEN!” screamed in their ears will work every time. Every, single time.”” is spot on excellent, I agree 1000%. (zeb my agreement is an endorsement of his comment, not making it about me).

Socons should be the biggest advocates, its one thing I was trying to say, and why Ive even allowed myself to be sucked into this tangent that I am sorry I started, but you know, everything is about me.

Oh, missed this:”””Then, get up to speed on the conversation, learn the background, identify the core concepts, and then think if you have anything to add other than listening to the sound of your own voice. ”

May I ask, what makes you think I’m not up to speed? What specific deficit have I demonstrated? What concept do I lack understanding of? I am fully up to speed, know exactly the contents and concepts being discussed, from the inside and the outside. (oh, and zed this paragraph is about me, its in response to your admonition which I cannot tell if it comes from arrogance. anger, or both). I actually will consider the screen name advice, it may be a sad day that that kind of superficiality must be employed to enter a conversation about what is a real and serious problem. It was useful on other boards in other contexts. Good call, think i will do that. But the rest of your admonition lacks substance, I retract my questions asking for evidence, there is none, I understand when emotion overcomes reason and we lash out, I will file it as such.

It really must be my screen name, I will change it because the choir is tired of hearing the preacher.
This could be about me)

The socon male has a few personally arrived at convictions, and the rest come from some woman who tells him if she wants his opinion she will give it to him. He is pathetic in that way, and at once sees himself at the apogee of heroic.

I think this is true. They aren’t aware of how foolish (and feminist) they really are. This is why I think ridicule is an essential tool to use when dealing with men like this. They expect to defend women from other angry males; it fits with their noble white knight perception. Ridicule by other men which is effective enough to get the women snickering is something else entirely. There is nothing noble about foolishness. They are extremely easy to be blindsided in this way precisely because of their failure to grasp what game teaches us about men and women. Their fatal flaw is that all of their groveling to women neither makes women like them, respect them, nor attracted to them.

Most important is that these enemies are more convertible, because the portion of their beliefs that pertain to mens issues is presently feeding their ego, if shown that its instead making them look pathetic, its different than wrenching someone from closely held core beliefs, it finds synergy with a mans pride, a powerful motivator in and of itself.

Yes, and once they see the light (or put on the glasses) I see no need to belabor their previous error. There is no shame in learning something new and breaking free of the conventional wisdom. We all have been there more or less, with the possible exception of Zed and Anon Age 69.

As for the discussion about you calling yourself Conservative, I personally don’t have any issue with it. For one thing, as I have stated before there is no orthodoxy needed to participate in this discussion. There is no Team Dalrock. This is just a conversation on the internet. My only concern would be if you took issue with us calling out the 99.9% of clueless SoCons on their groveling feminism. As I’ve said to Mark Richardson, my request is that the real deal not stand in the way of addressing the fakers, and instead actively help smoke them out. Nothing you have written has lead me to doubt you in this area.

I have changed the user name. Its not an emotional attachment i have to it, its laziness that Ive carried it around for years.
I may disagree with the 99.9% but the difference doesn’t matter, well more than enough fit the profile. What I simply couldn’t handle is the almost hypocrisy of using the exact same techniques women use ignoring utter and absolute statements of beliefs that conform perfectly, and are informed more than adequately, and are earned painfully. I think my question was salient, do some wish to write as liberals with an MRM sidebar, or to write and MRA’s realizing that that, as a movement has more grave consequence than labels in flux like liberal and conservative anyway.
I havent been here long enough to see a faker, and I haven’t read cover to cover, but I definitely know them when I see them, and see them on other sites all the time, and in person, the well intentioned idiots. They are sad shells of men. The ones that operate from the sense that they are virtuous in doing so are the more dogged, the ones who see the -if momma aint happy- dynamic for what it is are getting much closer to a breakthrough.

Most important is that these enemies are more convertible, because the portion of their beliefs that pertain to mens issues is presently feeding their ego, if shown that its instead making them look pathetic, its different than wrenching someone from closely held core beliefs, it finds synergy with a mans pride, a powerful motivator in and of itself.

It’s too late to “convert the enemies.” It has become like the Pacific theater in WW II – the battle has raged on for so long, and the entrenched animosity is so high, further hostilities may continue the turning tide of the war, but it has become time to drop the big one – fewer casualties that way.

Think of it like an approaching army of feminists. The socon patriarchs were safely tucked away far from the battle field. In between there were average men. These men were being felled left and right by fire that was not coming from the direction of the enemy. It took a long time for average men to figure out that the socons were shooting them in the backs.

Now that they have figured it out, they are deserting. They are turning the war over to you. It really wasn’t their fight to begin with, they were just average guys trying to get along with the women in their lives. Before Game, they were following the socon instructions on how to keep women haaaappy, and failing miserably.

Now, that Game has arrived, they are adopting it or have gotten too old to be bothered with it.

It’s your war now, socons. It’s your way of life that feminists attacked, and you killed all the guys defending it for you.

That’s a poor analogy. You omit a group, thats the socons that dont fit the negative descriptor, the ones that are not pandering to women, that are not just trying to get along with women, in fact the ones whose new belief set draws heavier fire FROM the feminists then MGOTW’s in the extreme.

Your sentence “It’s your war now, socons. It’s your way of life that feminists attacked, and you killed all the guys defending it for you. ” makes no sense at all. It says at once that you (collective) were defending the socon way of life and that the socons killed those who were actually allies. BUT, at the same time you are saying that the socon chosen way is necessarily anathema to yours (collective). That’s all messed up.

However, it doesn’t really matter.

Tell me, who is the enemy? Is it socons with feminists supporting them , or is it feminists with socons supporting them…..or, is it a coequal cabal of the two? The answer matters, because fixation with anything but the primary enemy would be like bombing Switzerland to get to the Nazi’s.

Dalrock, I think your critique of American conservatives overall is pretty on point, though I do think the 99.9% number is a bit much. I was thinking about this though and here’s something that occurred to me.

It isn’t so much that the nature of women in general is misunderstood by the majority of social conservatives. It’s the sexual nature of WASP women that is the issue and until people recognize that women are women are women (for the most part) this battle between true conservatives and what you call the “white nights” will continue.

I think I shared with you before how fascinating I find all of this because while it is a “new” think among most of the readership here, other cultures have never had this kind of naivete about women. Other cultures’ women are viewed for the flawed human beings that they are: Think the sexually generous Thai women or the Japanese Geisha girls. Black women have always been burdened with a reputation of being more wanton when the truth is they just seem not be as interested in birth control. Or at least that used to be the case because their birth rates have dropped dramatically too. Fiery Latin women? Check. The only ones besides WASP that don’t have a label are Muslim women who are tightly controlled partly because their cultures expect female anarchy should they loosen the grip.

So basically, American mainstream culture is waking up to what most of the world has always acknowledged: WASP women are as flawed and susceptible to sin as anyone else. Christian conservatives who have perpetuated the lie that anything less is true deserve to be called out. Their own Bibles belie this position. But keep in mine that there are socially conservative people from all walks and that may be why a good many get a bit perturbed with your sweeping generalization. It really, truly, doesn’t apply to us.

Right, women are women are women is more ways than socons are socons are socons, for very obvious scientific reasons.
Yep, the Bible is clear in its warnings to men about being men….BUT ALSO to men, about women. From nagging (dripping , crusty bread) to deceived (Eve) to deception, to her unhealthy fascination born of “wifes will desire their husbands”, the Bible is not the problem. Men are the problem in this, male white knight preachers, and man o man I want Dalrock to do his part 2 of the game for preachers…..unless its here and I cant find it, its very good, part 1 that is.

Once a Christian socon man realizes he has been living at the foot of shit hill (and that stuff rolls down ya know) and his place was set there by the ladies and useful idiot men of the church….he gets mad.

I asked a preacher buddy of mine (we did prison visits together weekly) why he never addressed divorce or difficult verses in Ephesians (I assumed he was like all the rest I knew) and he said, very even keel…..”my wife is in the audience”. BAM! There it was. Like David Murrow’s book has a quote, men sit on boards, women run the churches” Or the guy who was able to prove the supposition made by the church that men are bad and women good, he shows here:

Elspeth, I would agree with you, except for one small flaw. It’s not WASP culture anymore. WASP culture knew more about women and their behaviours than today’s mainstream wannabe culture. They had a system that worked. It was faulty but it worked, things got done. WASP culture is finished because it was destroyed by the multiculturalism and feminism of yesteryear.

Both men and women need restrictions, it’s a healthy part of life. People really shouldn’t be making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think it’s mainly because feminists cannot allow you to place a single little restriction on a woman’s ability to find herself. That would be losing a battle for them. I guess they will like winning every pitched battle but they will love eventually lose the war. Long, drawn out, low scale, guerrilla warfare always seems to destroy the more well funded opponent, more to lose I guess.

But, Feminist Hater, it was WASP culture (and WASP women) that ushered in the feminist movement. Multiculturalism came a bit later. American culture was still pretty homogenous in 1960. Am I mistaken about that?

Both men and women need restrictions, it’s a healthy part of life. People really shouldn’t be making a mountain out of a mole hill. I think it’s mainly because feminists cannot allow you to place a single little restriction on a woman’s ability to find herself.

I agree with you 100% on that. One of my biggest problems with feminism (and there are many) is that it frees women from all the restrictions and responsibilities they traditionally held while expecting men to navigate this brave new world while still playing by the old rules, responsibilities, and restrictions. There’s nothing “equal” about that.

I should have said: “multiculturalism as a force to be reckoned with came later.”

When Friedan and company were on the move, most people were not at all interested in a cultural mingling. That came as a natural outgrowth of tearing down the cultural barriers and traditional roles of men and women.

It was in fact this phenomenon that contributed to the dysfunction in the black community. My father’s generation (he’s 80) named their children Western names- they were Americans after all- believed in the man as the head of his home, and valued hard work and family. It wasn’t until feminists instituted the “no holds barred” approach to life for women that other ethnicities of people began to decide (just like the feminists) that American culture was flawed, inferior, and something to be cast off and replaced with more “authentic” cultures, culminating with a people (who share my ancestry) calling themselves African-American when most of them couldn’t name 5 African countries on a map.

But let’s keep things in their proper order. This did not begin with multiculturalism. This began with women deciding that the patriarchy (code for evil white men in power) were to be overthrown at whatever cost.

WASP culture means the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture that was brought over from England. You cannot call the men, like Ted Kennedy and others, WASP men, they are not the same caliber as the men who fought in the American Revolution. That was when true WASP culture flourished. Some thing between 1783 and the early 1900s changed WASP culture so fundamentally that it literally committed suicide in the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights ACT. If you can determine what or who that was, you might just have the source of the greatest ills of Western Society.

Oh and one more thing. After the WASP women decided to discard any real obligation to their men, and ethnic minority Americans decided that this culture was something to rebel against and discard, it was then that multiculturalism gained a foothold and every group that sailed, swam, or flew over here felt no need to embrace the dominant culture.

Hopefully Brendan, Dalrock, or someone smarter will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’ve got this right.

Oh, and I hope you can appreciate my ambivalence with respect to your perspective on the Civil Rights Act. Not that I don’t appreciate the principle of freedom of association. I just don’t trust the concept of “separate but equal.”

And now, I have lost nearly all good will among the men who had previously been so receptive to my comments and my blog, LOL.

Well, he was part of the Kennedy family. Supposedly a famous family with a president and others in politics. Just because he was a Catholic doesn’t change much, instead it actually reinforces the idea. Why would WASP culture allow itself to be dictated to by a Catholic? A flaw there if ever there was one. He was fundamental in passing some of the most controversial ACTs in history. Other countries would have never dreamed of passing the stuff he did, they would know it’s suicide in the long run. Therefore, for some thing like that to happen, the WASP culture would have to be nothing but a shadow of its former self.

And now, I have lost nearly all good will among the men who had previously been so receptive to my comments and my blog, LOL.

Why? If I don’t agree with the purpose of the Civil Rights Act does that change your opinion of me? Am I not allowed to disagree with it? I just call things like I see them and after the passing of that ACT, America took a nose dive. It’s a key element in the puzzle.

Why? If I don’t agree with the purpose of the Civil Rights Act does that change your opinion of me?

No, Feminist Hater. I’m certain we still agree on far more than we disagree with. It has been my experience in these parts however, that you are an anomaly. Once a woman offers a contrary view even once, she is usually denounced roundly. You’re a breath of fresh air, sir.

It’s been a fun and interesting conversation. Now I have to get to the center of my oppression, as I have to get dinner finished up and ready to serve in the next hour, LOL.

Pedestalising of women seems especially to be an American problem. I don’t think we do that so much here in Australia. And it is perfectly true that the Bible should be an antidote to pedestalising women. My own brand of Christianity keeps women out of power in the Church, very wisely.

Some SoCons never overvalued women. I am one. I have never had a high opinion of women. And I have always been a social conservative. I have a fairly successful marriage, partly because I had a suspicious attitude to women and quickly learned how bad they can be.

American WASPs basically abolished themselves by becoming liberal and putting money into liberal causes. I am not keen on conspiracy theories, but they do seem to have supplied the seed money.

You omit a group, thats the socons that dont fit the negative descriptor, the ones that are not pandering to women, that are not just trying to get along with women, in fact the ones whose new belief set draws heavier fire FROM the feminists then MGOTW’s in the extreme.

I omitted them because I consider them a negligible political force.

You’re right, I am getting a kick out of baiting you. I’ve had this same old conversation so many times over the past 30-35 years that I know what buttons to hit, in my sleep – just like the snooze alarm. The only way I keep from dying of boredom from having to go over it again is see how much I can make a socon sputter. I love the sound of socons sputtering in the morning… ;)

The bottom line pretty much boils down to this –
I have linked a few times to some of Bill Price’s accounts of his ordeal with Family Courts. Now, Bill is a guy who did things in pretty much a socially conservative way. He got married, had kids, in the traditionally conservative way – meaning with his wife only. But then he committed the third part of the 3-part crime – he allowed the mother of his children to become unhappy.

And, now he is on trial for it. It takes all 3 parts of the tripod to make this the crime it is – having a child out of wedlock means that the father has no rights, so he does not have the chance to engage in custody and visitation battles. It takes all 3 parts of the crime to put a man in the position that Bill is in. He is also committing the crime of being behind on his child support – because he simply isn’t making enough money to live and pay it – and if he falls far enough behind in many jurisdictions he becomes a felon, escaping arrest until the legal system issues an arrest warrant and takes what little tax and CS money he can pay out of the picture and puts him into the prison industrial complex.

I, on the other hand, who have spent my adult live telling socons to go pound sand into rat holes, am walking around a free man, not guilty of any crime, not fearing imminent arrest, not forced to spend large amounts of what I do make in order to maintain some small role in my children’s lives.

Now, when the police arrest some guy dealing crack cocaine in my neighborhood, put him in jail, put him on trial, either send him to prison or threaten to, most people would get the clue that the PTB don’t want you to do this and if they catch you doing it then they will punish you severely.

So, Bill is being punished severely for doing as the socons say they want him to do, and I remain completely unpunished for telling them to go pound sand. Damn that autonomy! ;)

I’ll pass on the “manning up”, thank you so much. I “manned out” years ago. I’m just not enough of a RealMan­­™ to take the punishment that socons mete out to RealMen­­™. I had fun for years practicing being an UN-real man, then I set my sights higher and aspired to become a SUR-real man. ;) ( absurdist humor being one of the hallmarks)

Now, the bad news – you’re next. Nothing in all this body of “well, it seemed like a good idea at the time” legislation provides any exemption to any man based on his political leanings. When it comes your turn in the cross-hairs, you’re there and there won’t be anyone to help you out of it – particularly not those whose political philosophy it seems to upset you so much to see demeaned,

As far as “converting those enemies”… I will let the family courts do that. I make a sizable contribution in the form of taxes to support the FC, and I have found them far more effective than I have ever been able to be in converting a silent socon into an MRA. You’ve heard the old saying that a conservative is often a former liberal who has just been mugged? Well, the vast majority of MRAs used to be socons who got mugged by the family courts.

Let some guy’s wife go EPL on him and drag him through FC, and his political viewpoints will change so fast that it will make your head swim.

I think everyone’s turn in the box is coming soon. Elusive Wapiti wrote a review of a book about the death of empires and a common characteristic is that as they go down the inhabitants do not come together, but turn on each other.

I think I am seeing the beginnings of that in our current culture. Lots of ideological wars are breaking out between groups who outsiders might view as actually being on the same side. Lots of people are turning on each other. I see a huge cage match coming in many of our futures – kind of a big “Thunderdome.” ;)

There is a huge Internet brouhaha going on between the more traditional MRAs and the Game/PUA community. Traditional MRAs – who regard tricking a woman into bed as being unethical – view PUAs as a cross between Leisure Suit Larry and Bernie Madoff. Younger men look at the older MRAs and laugh, point to the battleground that relationships between the sexes have become on the older men’s watch, and say “And, you want us to follow YOUR advice??!!!”

What I refer to as “traditional MRAs” are the guys who live through changing times, realized that they were changing, and wanted to participate in making the transition as painless and equitable as possible. We were sort of the middle men between the socons, mediating the compromise between keeping things exactly as they were, and giving the feminists everything they were asking for.

What I think we ended up with was giving feminists and women everything they asked for, but keeping things pretty much as they were for men. (“Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.”)

Dalrock is one of those guys who can look a bit into the future and realize that all this isn’t going to stay out of his back yard forever. He is doing a brilliant job – as an insider – on calling out hypocrisy. In fact, it is one of the most socially conservative approaches I have seen – reform the corrupt systems before they turn on you and eat you.

Here is a detail, to add to Zed’s remark above, about Welmer/ Bill Price’s situation. In a recent article he mentioned that he had to respond to the latest “parenting plan” filed by his wife. It appears that under the laws of the state of Washington, the custodial parent can decide to file a new “parenting plan” pretty much whenever they want to. There is no limit to the number of times that a refiling of a “parenting plan” can be done. If the non-custodial parent fails to respond to the new “parenting plan” in court by the deadline, for any reason, the new “parenting plan” will be put into effect.

What this appears to mean in practical terms is brutally simple: in Washington State, a woman with custody of her husbands children can file plan after plan after plan, and if he ever fails to contest in court due to any reason – can’t afford a lawyer, wasn’t properly notified, was out of town on the critical day – he could lose all contact with his children permanently. I am not a lawyer, and may have misread, but that’s what I see. Thus a vindictive woman who is determined to cut her ex husband off from his children is given as many chances as she needs to carry out her plan. She can lose her case in court any number of times and still get to try again, he has to contest every time, and if he loses just once he’s done.

This is just one part of the reality Zed is writing about. It amounts to a kind of “tax” on fatherhood- a financial tax, an emotional tax, and so forth. As we all know if you want less of something, tax it.

Poor guy I work with….lost and blinded by the mama aint happy. He sits at the top of the tumble down dalrock illustrates in his descending dialog here.
This dude lays in the mud puddle so his wife doesnt get her feet wet. He is an elder at a local church, father of 2 grown and married sons, and go to guy for each and every whim his wife tosses his way. A recent example….they wanted to build a deck. he called some contractors, they came with photos and a pitch, one duly impressed the wife, and the contractor said “well we need 75% of the estimate to get us started”. My work mate says, “all terms and conditions are fine but not comfortable with 75%”….the contractor was thinking it over (and would have taken less) and the wife starts murmuring “we can give him 75% just go get the checkbook and give the man his 75%” No wall eyed look would settle her, he caved and wrote the guy 75% check.
Fast forward, the work was in progress, the contractor dropped a load of decking lumber off. The wife saw a knot in a board and said this just wont do….the contractor says OK, you go choose your lumber we will take this back and credit you what you pay. They went to Lowe’s and spent over 2 hours 1 board at a time selecting it…well, her standing there while hubby lifted and held each board. They had that load of hand selected wood delivered, now they have more than 75% out, cash wise.
The contractor never came back. he avoided calls and everything. Daily my friends wife was calling him at work demanding he get the deck finished no matter what. Finally he had to hire a second contractor, and ended up out a couple thousand bucks over all. Then she bitched that the back yard needed some sod replaced because of the deck work, he dutifully did it himself. This is one of myriad things that keep mama happy.
He is a Christian conservative, 60 years old. He grumbles a little about it, but, he cannot see anything wrong at all, nothing, he insists its his pleasure to do these things for her. he is a Christian socon sadly sold out to some sense of old fashioned chivalrous values that keep him under the thumb of an emotionally unsettled woman.
He hasnt been hosed by family court…..but…..the only reason is he has adapted the role of beast of burden with panache.
The generation just one older than me….those around 60, and my generation, middle agers 50 and above, I believe are the peak of this badly messed up dysfunction where mama being happy is all that matters. I hope Im right on that

“but…..the only reason is he has adapted the role of beast of burden with panache.”

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”
Of course, a beast of burden is a totally different proposition, but maybe it works just as well.

ruddy

“NOT fools’ errands such as “restoring the partiarchy” and denying women the right to vote.”

There is no denying, they never earned it in the first place. And they got it in a few decades after men(in some cases just a few years after, saudi arabia is apparently going to follow) which makes most of feminist hand-wringing a century after the fact even more ridiculous.

“Men and women need to have, and should have, equal rights and responsibilities,”

oook.

“to the extent that biology and law can make that possible.”

law kinda makes it suspicious, but fine.

“Equality and freedom, the hallmark of a real liberal agenda. The feminist agenda is anything but that, it is about total freedom for women, yes, but without responsibility, and total responsibility for men without freedom, and the obvious subsequent lack of equality. ”

And who decides this?
When you buy into the women’s right to vote, and the legitimacy of the earlier feminists then you’ve already ceded your premises. No wonder your conclusions, despite not being a product of past, are just a cliche. The past matters, even if a real liberal doesn’t take it into account, for the 99.99% of liberals and their future equitopia.
Belfort Bax’s books are an eye-opener in this regard. The Fraud of Feminism should be read by every man.

“They should have the right to pursue whateve career they desire. They should have equality of opportunity. They should have the right to defer, or even forego, marriage, if they choose. They should have reproductive freedom. And so on. ”

No, they should have nothing of the sort. Nothing. Men need to take control of their societies and allow women only the freedoms and institutions they wish upon them.
The genderless “government” is the real social construct and men need a recognition of the lengths it has gone to give women the so-called equality and take away freedoms from men at their whims.
Men should’ve the right to not employ women. Right to deny them the same career trajectory as for men. As much of an equality of opportunity as the favors men get in the educational system for being men. As few women-only programs as their abundance in the government.

If this appears the mirror image of feminism, then so be it. Those who operate under the illusion of sexes being the same or the naive idealism of their values or that such values can be imposed without making a mockery of their own ideals are seriously deluded.

“but has gone completely off the deep end by getting mixed up with extreme reactionary views ”

lol the old school feminists had suffragetes burning up buildings, assassination attempts and their ideological daughters opely write about genocide of men, but return to patriarchy is a strict no-no. Are we really to evaluate things based on their novelty of concept?

“The first breakthrough for the Feminists came in 1869, when women got the vote in the American State of Wyoming, and the first sovereign state to grant women the vote was New Zealand – in 1893. However, in no country did men force women to become liable to be drafted into the front line, in return for getting the vote. This shows how little thinking was done about equality of rights and responsibilities.”

“Fran Wilde, a former Mayor of Wellington, New Zealand, is a Feminist. In her mayoral election campaign, she even went so far as to hold a public meeting on what it would mean to turn Wellington into a Feminist city. On the morning after Anzac Day 1993, a public holiday which is meant to honour New Zealand’s war dead, she was reported in the Dominion newspaper as follows:

“‘Remembering men who died in war was important but it was EQUALLY (my emphasis) important to recognise the often-overlooked sacrifices and experiences of women,’ Wellington Mayor Fran Wilde said at yesterday’s Anzac Day Service of Commemoration at Wellington Cenotaph.”

Her use of the word “equally” is astonishing, because about 1000 New Zealand men were killed in the Second World War, about 3000 were wounded, and about 2,000 were taken prisoner. We can add to this number the thousands of men who were killed, wounded or captured in the Boer War, the First World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and various United Nations peacekeeping operations.

To Fran Wilde, what these thousands of men went through was “equally” balanced by a group of fifty nurses who went to serve in the Middle East in the First World War — plus one individual woman who set up canteens and clubs for troops, and worked to prevent venereal disease amongst the troops. The total number of these 51 women who were captured, wounded or killed is precisely zero. ”

Taken from Peter Zohrab’s Sex, Lies and Feminism.

“In Australia women “won” the vote in 1902. But Australia has only existed as a country since 1901. The individual states either had no voting prior to federation (in which case women “won” the right to vote a year after men) or conformed to the pattern of women gaining the vote a few decades after men. ”

@Namka
“No, they should have nothing of the sort. Nothing. Men need to take control of their societies and allow women only the freedoms and institutions they wish upon them.
The genderless “government” is the real social construct and men need a recognition of the lengths it has gone to give women the so-called equality and take away freedoms from men at their whims.”

Brilliantly said, men created the societies we live in, based on the needs & wants of men

By giving women votes & participation in a society they simply do not understand, their feminine contextualisation of how law & society functions, literally wreak havok in a male driven structure created by men, for men

Our families are driven on male forms of justice & honour, when we replace those with compassion & tolerance, we also replace male sexuality with serial promiscuity & hypergamy, a perversion of the male survival of the fittest

The greatest danger to our society is the female concepts of emotional awareness, over the need for raw logic & rational, which always leads to mass poverty & highly destructive economies, ie case in point matriarchia Africa

We have to strip women of power, & only allow women capable of overriding their biological & emotional traits, & most importantly only & only if theyre able to compete with men, to function in our corporations & science & mathematical society

“No, they should have nothing of the sort. Nothing. Men need to take control of their societies and allow women only the freedoms and institutions they wish upon them.”

it’s a measure of how satanically deceived and lost the west is, that such obvious truth and common sense is seen as “extremist”

the alternative is to stay the course, and sink ever deeper into the anti-male, corrupt, economically dead feminist police-state that amerika has become

“If this appears the mirror image of feminism, then so be it. ”

it is NOT feminism’s mirror image, but i frequently see that rhetorical tactic from folks who want to water-down and undercut the plain solutions to our gynocracies (“m.r.a.s are just like feminists”)

our feminist nations thrive on the hatred and destruction of masculinity, fatherhood, fairness, family, and love of god

despite feminist propaganda and historical revisionism, pre-fem cultures didn’t wage endless campaigns of malevolence against females, nor is there anything in your statements that suggests such

the “mirror-tactic” is, yet again, the projection of the inner-life of most women, and their manginas, onto men: that, given the chance, a male-positive society would engage in the mass degradation of females, as the matriarchies have engaged in with males

it’s a lie — men do not seek the mass-scapegoating and enslavement of women; yet we have seen very clearly what happens when nations strip essentially all rights from males, while empowering females without limit. . . females and their enablers use that power for selfish, greedy, vengeful, and malicous ends, and make gender-monopolies out of government, communications, law, and education

they infest the churches, indeed they are the foundation of the churches and fem-communities, and they dont fart w/o pre-approval from their wives…. and thier (false) pastors are as emasculated and materially besotted as they are

i live in a rural mountainous county, and we have over a thousand homeless vets, in this isolated single county alone, with average winter temps below freezing

yet what is the concern of the “churches”?

Pleasing Mama is their concern… endlessly ornamenting Mama’s MegaNest is their concern… privileging their mincing daughters is their concern… buying up another 40 acres, to add to their sprawling 170 acres, is their concern… passing more anti-male “laws” and finding ever-more-original ways to put men in cages is their concern… adding a few more Arabians to Mama’s herd is their concern

then they go to church on sunday and blather about the Father this and jesus that

woe unto them, grievous and terrible woe, they will be dragged from the grave by their necks and cast into the fire, with their fine-grained cherrywood decks and their SUVs and their gold futures cast after them, and the righteous in heaven will shout for joy

“He hasnt been hosed by family court…..but…..the only reason is he has adapted the role of beast of burden with panache.”

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”

Where did that last quote come from? It captures the essence of the issue perfectly. When a man “submits to his wife”, then he checks out of having to take responsibility and turns it over to her. I can see why women hate this – it seems to underlie that worn out saying about “not wanting another child to take care of” that women keep repeating.

I think the reason that so many men are so obsessed with beating other men into submission to their wives is that the pain comes back for the man when he finds himself next other a man who is not similarly cowed.

FWIW, HST should be put on the Honor Roll of all time natural alphas. His whole life he treated women like something that stank and was stuck to the bottom of his shoe and they regularly beat the crap out of one another for to be first in the line.

I think the reason that so many men are so obsessed with beating other men into submission to their wives is that the pain comes back for the man when he finds himself next other a man who is not similarly cowed.

Of course. That is why Game is so powerful. One man practicing Game deprives multiple manginas/whiteknights of what little scraps they were getting.

This is why they have been doubling down since the start of 2010. That was when the number of men running varying degrees of Game (both single and within marriage) became non-trivial.

Alright, let me come at this from another direction. And this time I’m not baiting you or channeling Paul Elam. ;) Let me explain the manosphere land mine that you inadvertently stepped on as you entered. Maybe it will also go toward explaining why the posses form to go after announced Christians/socons.

Ever since what has come to be called “the manosphere” started to coalesce about 10-15 years or so ago around a few scattered men’s sites – (what is sometimes called the “Armies of One” stage) – Team Woman has done a devastating job of invading and derailing just about every conversation men were trying to have about the issues with shrieks of “NAWALT, NAWALT, NAWALT!!!” (Not All Women Are Like That)

Suddenly the conversation at hand was completely dropped and got hijacked to be about arguing whether every last one of the 3 billion women on earth were “like that.” Of course, it was the ultimate straw man because very few of the original conversations claimed that “all women were like that”, but were more in the form of “SOME women are like that, and this is how and why they are so destructive.” That conversation never happened because few rational men would claim that “all women were like that”, so the conversation died.

Frankly, that was why women were hostilely run out of the spearhead – because the few of us that had learned to handle that attempt to hijack the thread were always outnumbered by the newbies who fell for it.

The way to handle it is to say “True. So stipulated. But, since they aren’t ‘like that’, then we aren’t talking about them, are we? Now, can we get back to talking about the women who are ‘like that’, and how destructive they are being?”

So, a sniper who has been on watch for about 10-12 years hears a twig snap, and comes instantly alert. And, he sees something that looks remarkably like a attempted NAWALT hijack, wearing a bit of camouflage – “But, Not All SoCons Are Like That!” – NASCALT.

Well, of course and obviously Not All SoCons Are Like That. So. how do we keep the conversation going forward without falling into arguing a straw-man tautology? Shall we come up with separate terms for the SoCons who are “like that” and the ones who aren’t? Shall we refer to “those other” SoCons, you know, the ones who are “like that” as TOSoCons – “Those Other SoCons”? Or maybe to the SoCons who are “not like that” as the “NLT-SoCons”.

I’m only being a little bit facetious here, because as simple as these issues sound, they have caused huge problems over the years and are only now finally being overcome because the manosphere has become so huge. For years, one dedicated feminist/Team Woman troll could keep an entire forum immobilized for months. One woman who went by the name of Jeanna kept Glenn Sacks forum fairly useless for years.

Of course, NASCALT. And, the nltSoCons are catching it from both sides. In many respects, they are suffering from all of this as much or more than the secular people, because is is very often your own leaders who sell you out along with everyone else.

Bill McCartney threw an entire large stadium full of religious men under the bus and sold them out to feminists in 1997. He bought into the whole feminist line – hook, line, and sinker – and confessed the guilt of all those decent men who just came there to worship and draw strength from other religious men. Promise Keepers went into a power dive into the ground after that, attendance at their events plummeted, and the stink still hasn’t worn off of them.

I speculate that the reason Dalrock focuses on this particular aspect of the Gender War is that he is in the cross-hairs of it. A secular man can look at that idiotic piece of tripe “Fireproof”, dismiss it, and never give it another thought. But, in a community in which the elders hand it out as “god’s little instruction book on how men must submit to their wives” it takes resistance with finesse to keep the elders from ganging up on him and forcing it down his throat.

I think Dalrock has shown both, in admirable measure.

I apologize for being a prick toward you, but ask in return that you consider that NAWALT/NASCALT come very close to being “fighting words” in parts of the manosphere – as was explained to Suz that “man up” and “let’s you and him fight” are not good ways to enter a conversation.

I am aware of, informed on, and agree with every thing you said. If it seemed I was trying to make a NASCALT argument from thin air, then I misspoke or was misunderstood. I can’t get past the faulty logic of any “not all” argument, so would never intentionally make one. I guess I can see the twig snapping analogy, so, maybe taking it a bit further, now that a reliable friendly is the source of the noise, lets get back to pissing out of the tent not in it. If not it starts to take on one of the characteristics of the church that I dislike which is a preacher repeating things as if the listeners have never heard them before.
I came to MND in ’04, and have been involved in this “manosphere” since. I was there for the famous Steven Guess (if I recall the name) debates….remember those?

Ray, thanks
I sort of live amongst those men. I have another guy at work who attends a church I sed to attend, and he and I have some things in common, he bright eyed and freshly scrubbed look asked me “have you seen Courageous yet?” With no inflection I simple said no, no interest and I recommend no other man go see that or any of the movies that church makes.
Silence, you’d have thought I told him I was buying a cow and converting to Buddhism.
Why, he demanded, he is a fan of those movies he says……no surprise there. I asked him if I could stop by his office and explain myself, not a one off in the hallway. Like so many, he SEEMS sharp, gives off the certain Christian no nonsense blue collar vibe I am so accustomed to from doing prison ministry, and I thought what the hell….
I went there with my thoughts organized, so I didnt let my passion cause me to spout, I wanted to give info in an orderly way.
We started with trying to show him the red pill world, using facts and figures, Socratic questioning to impeach his predictable answers, but not done in a condescending way.
He became very animated and started telling me some scriptures, she is the weaker vessel Love as Christ the church, etc. etc. Saying to me, “this is what MY Bible says”…..I knew I’d gotten nowhere. I recommended a couple of books (he has read fiction books Ive recommended so it was worth a try) and left him in his happy world. He too is 60ish. In fact every 60ish man I work with have this problem, scriptural self effacement is stupid, but man is it addictive to that generation in particular, and it is to mine too because we were parented by that one…I’m 49. (today actually, happy day to me)
On rare occasion I hear a worthy sermon on the radio, or a friend sends me something saying “this gay gets it”…..then I scratch the surface and find the same crap.
I downloaded over a hundred sermons from various churches across the country by finding them online….fathers day and mothers day, and the ever present “marriage series” where they talk to men one week and to women the next, and I did lots of counting and studying of those to create my own little statistics about gynocentrism in church, then I use them to write to the pastors and challenge them. The interactions are interesting, I get a tiny bit of traction, usually more with assistant pastors then I find those guys are just politikin for the head job.

“””I apologize for being a prick toward you, but ask in return that you consider that NAWALT/NASCALT come very close to being “fighting words” in parts of the manosphere – as was explained to Suz that “man up” and “let’s you and him fight” are not good ways to enter a conversation.””””

I want to try one more time to say something, first, I didnt do the “not every” thing, as Ive explained, and never ever ever have I been guilty of man up or white feather type stuff.
I can understand the sensitivity to it, but respectfully suggest that perhaps its a wee bit over done.

(now about me again) As for me, my chosen field of battle happens to be mainly amongst the socons and Christians, and I don’t try to disguise myself as one (gender matter wise) of them to get into their midst. My thrust personally, as irrelevant as that indeed is in the scheme of things, is not all dissimilar to Dalrocks, which is why I like this blog better than 95% of the others I find.

I enjoy reading the women who appear on the blogroll because I like seeing them get it…..as they do sometimes, I do realize if you wait long enough odds are something will pop up that is NOT congruent with *us*.
Ive read your writing , posts for years and always enjoyed them wholeheartedly, so most assuredly have no interest in stepping into a made up fray between allies.
I’m not trying to shift subjects, I just have no other way to communicate with you or I wouldnt waste bytes on dalrocks blog with such between you and me-ish stuff.
Anyway, nuff said my side

empathiologicalism, ask that 60-something guy this question: “Does Jesus give people everything that they want or does he give them what they need?”, maybe use the example of someone who prays for a new car – do they get it? Do they really need it or not? Does Jesus ever reply to prayer with the answer “no”? Can the 60-something guy tell his wife “no” and make it stick?

A lot of men at the leading edge of the Baby Boom have a real hard time separating “want” from “need” for themselves, and even more so for their “weaker vessels” (snort!). The “weaker vessels” that they cannot ever say “no” to…

Elspeth, I think that making the issue WASP women is way too narrow. There were feminists in the 19th century in France, which ain’t Anglo Saxon and not all that Protestant, either. Maybe you could argue it’s a white, European thing but not a WASP issue. Well, so was Marxism at first (and I continue to insist that feminism is a variant or subspecies of Marxism) but the biggest Marxist – feminist country now is the People’s Republic of China – no WASP factor there. Japanese women embraced feminism to varying degrees years ago as well. Feminism has been making advances in India for generations.

Last but not least, do not forget that the first field test of full-bore feminism was in the USSR circa 1921 or so. You could argue it was a white country at that time, but that’s as far as it goes.

He cannot say no. Today for example he looks like hell. He stayed up nearly all night because suddenly last night she asked him would he make a DVD w/ some still photos and music for her to use in her high school french class (shes a teacher)….it would be fine once in awhile, but the stories are daily, and frankly unbelievable what hoops she makes him go through.

Thats why I say these men of that generation, I see this in those Christian men very very strongly. They defer to the wives, and if you ever question them they either go militant w/ the weaker vessel defense, or they go soppy with some sentimental defense and start the self effacing about oh the poor thing she has put up with me for years. These are the same guys that routinely tell jokes like “what do you call a woman with no asshole……..divorced” hahahahaha hilarious isnt it?
I speak up when i hear that crap, and have been derided from that generation and my contemporaries at middle age

Male-bashing is not new in Australia, although it has always been of a relatively mild jocular type. I think at some level women, even good women, do resent men. There used to be a popular sevtion of a big Australian women’s magazine called Mere Male, with stories about the supposedly silly things husbands did. This was 50 years ago.

The resentment of men found a mild, relatively healthy outlet in that case, but the problems really began when organised feminism developed. This pooled and mainstreamed the resentment. A good definition of feminism might be “institutionalised nagging”.

But it is probably inevitable that women will resent men. They are weaker physically, have a reputation for being less intellectually gifted, get penetrated routinely, have the discomfort of bearing children, and know that – for whaever reason – their sex has historically underachieved. They are the underdogs and they feel resentment. They mostly direct this at the losers among men. Which is why the same girl will be on her knees for the top male but step on the bottom males. Women are like Mother Nature – mindless and merciless.

I want to try one more time to say something, first, I didnt do the “not every” thing, as Ive explained, and never ever ever have I been guilty of man up or white feather type stuff.
I can understand the sensitivity to it, but respectfully suggest that perhaps its a wee bit over done.

And, I respectfully admit that you are right. My bad.

As long as you understand that something which shows up that has feathers like a duck, kind of waddles like a duck, has a bill which resembles a duck, could be mistaken for a duck even if it really is a Canadian goose. I won’t go much into why the “Why don’t you trust us?” way of opening looks something like the opening of a con-man’s scam. But, trustworthy people tend to not make how much people trust them be the first topic of conversation – they just show up and act trustworthy.

Marriage rates have been falling for 50 years, and the “Marriage-Dow-Jones” has gone below where it was in 1929. At what altitude do you think that a plane in a nose dive merits ripping the cover off the panic button and pushing it?

Nero has done a lot of fiddling while Rome burned. Cultural momentum is very difficult to reverse, and it really does seem that unless people start getting real sensitive to its decline, that marriage is going to remain in free-fall until it bottoms out somehow. Charles Martel (no, not that one, but a more recent one) fit the trend line since 1980 onto a couple of curves – one crashes into the ground in 2028, the other crashes in 2034.

Dalrock disagrees with this analysis, and I don’t disagree with his agreement, but every time new figures come out, the downward trend continues unbroken. For people with children, this means that their chances of getting and remaining married will be less than people today.

People have been pointing out the iceberg and telling the steersman of the Titanic that it needs to be turned for more than 40 years, but it keeps on steaming onward on the same course. They started out in a normal tone of voice, then got louder, then started screaming.

Getting some admission back that someone else realizes that we seem to be on a collision course and something far more substantive than just lip service need to be done does a lot to quiet the conversation.

With that said as a sort of introduction, to your question about the posses.

The punch line is this – feminists and Those Other SoCons have formed the mutual larceny contract of – You hold him down while I rob him.

It doesn’t much matter which party is “you” or “I” in the contract, one party holds him down while the other robs him. It is as predictable as the sun coming up – batting 1000. Let them show up, either as a group like a traveling Gypsy camp, or a couple of advance scouts, and let them camp even just for one night, and you can (and will be) betting the farm that the moment your back is turned they will jump you, knock you to the ground, and some of them will hold you down while the rest of them rob you.

Every time.

So, the local townspeople have just spontaneously developed the habit that when anyone who even looks like a Gypsy shows up, a posse spontaneously forms and runs them out of the county.

OK, so you are an honest, hard working, Romanian carpenter. And, you think it is damned unfair that you get the bum’s rush when you don’t deserve it. And, you are right – it is damned unfair – just as it was when the honest townspeople were rushed by bums.

But, the old saying – “fool us once, shame on you. fool us twice, shame on us.” applies here.

Guys who didn’t have a hair trigger tended to end up on the ground with a handful of thugs shoving automatic weapons in his face – as Bill Price did.

So, if you want to talk Romanian to the Gypsies because you share a homeland – go ahead. But, when entering a town which has been stripped bare by Gypsies, it might be best to not advertise your ancestry and when asked, say “I’m Polish.” ;)

“Barring a return to “at fault” divorces, if we had shared equal parenting (custody) laws we would see fewer divorces and a more equal financial responsibility when they did occur. We would also probably see more marriages due to the fact that they would no longer just a financial trap for men. One of the prime motivating factors behind why women file for divorce is that they have certainty that they will end up with custody and they have a financial safety net provided gratis.”
Maybe not. See Sweden.

Fair enough, Anonymous Reader. At least you understand my overall point: that us brown folk are routinely taken to task for the breakdown of American culture and multiculturalism in general.

And while I heartily agree that many minorities (not all) have had far too good a time abusing the new system, the system gained its foothold because of the actions of white women and political Marxists all too eager to exploit the general vulnerability and gullibility of the feminine mind.

I came to MND in ’04, and have been involved in this “manosphere” since. I was there for the famous Steven Guess (if I recall the name) debates….remember those?

Sorry, no. I was one of those uppity male rabblerousers who refused to submit to navyblue’s (female) headship, so I was one of those people who Mike nuked his own forums to get rid of. I think it was in December 2003. I never went back. I think he put Pete Jensen (Gonzo) in as moderator after navyblue eventually quit, but it always seemed that it was more rightwingnewsdaily than specifically about men. I think the forum eventually died due to lack of interest.

The rabblerousers regrouped, but a mole followed us, and the first replacement forum lasted 6 days before it got nuked. The one after that lasted a couple of months. Its been so long that I have sort of lost count, but I saw either 6-7 forums just disappear without warning that year.

Most of us just threw up our hands and went fishing. If people were that determined to silence us, our own determination to resist their efforts to force us to submit to female headship wasn’t quite holding up to the sustained attack on us.

A year or so went by, and one of the guys got hold of some of us and said, “C’mon, dudes, we can’t just give up. Let’s try to do something.” So, we convened again – a very small group, only the most highly trusted men, about half a dozen of us. We discussed – via email, so there was no one target – for a while. A guy flew over from northern Europe to meet with a couple of us in the US. The plan we put together was pretty simple, and the site we built to support it was, shall we say – “hardened.” We put MGTOW out in the public domain as an idea, and just watched to see if it would take root.

Time passed and what is now called the “manosphere” continued to develop. More and more people were catching on to the fact that something was seriously going wrong. Some new people were entering the manosphere – like Bill Price, Ferdinand, Keoni Galt, Elusive Wapiti, Brendan (blog discontinued), etc, etc, until it comes to our dear Dalrock.

I’m not trying to lecture you on things you already know, nor to talk down to you. However, there are no Internet name badges which state “Member of the Manosphere since ____.” You have been around enough to know that someone who heard about a site 1 hour ago can plop down next to someone who has been there since the beginning. We are constantly shifting back and forth between explaining jargon, going over basic concepts, and jumping to some higher level discussion.

About a year or so ago, men’s sites started disappearing in the middle of the night again. It appeared that once they had broken above a sort of “radar floor” they became threatening enough that someone conspired to have them taken down. Having watched so many being taken down, I have learned to be watchful for the signs.

I won’t belabor the point of how many warning bells your first few posts triggered. Let’s just say “a lot.”

I don’t know if you have heard of or read a book called “Antagonists in the Church”, but Anonymous Age 69 (seems like it should be 70 by now;) ) swears by it.

Antagonism exists in the church. It leaves in its wake broken lives: people who are hurt, discouraged, and apathetic. Although only a very few persons are antagonists, these individuals have the potential to disrupt and even destroy a congregation’s mission and ministry.

A key piece in what it says it that when an antagonist appears, of course he targets the leader, the pastor. And, the worst thing the elders can do is back off and treat what is going on as some sort of “personality conflict” between the antagonist and the leader, and let the leader fend for himself, while the antagonist creates dissension and division within the congregation.

What the elders HAVE TO do is play offensive tackle for the their ball carrier – the pastor – and take out the antagonist themselves.

I consider what Dalrock is doing with this blog as a sort of ministry. And, I am very protective of if. He is something of a newbie to the world of managing Internet technology, has a wife and family, and writes some really hard hitting stuff. He doesn’t need to get blind-sided by an antagonist, which he is not well prepared to deal with.

I’ll take your word that you are the real deal. Dalrock’s ministry is important and he needs all the deacons and elders who will join him. And, I think he has risen above the radar floor and I think the blog will be attacked in the next year.

I hope he can count on you to be here to help him defend it.

Now, since you have been around this for a while, and are more aware of the history than I realized, you probably know that the alliance between the religious right and the worst of the feminists goes back 30 years – back to the early 80s and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon.

You have your work cut out for you in getting your people out of bed with the worst sort of feminists.

yeah empath your married friend is deep in the maytricks — it’s warmer than you’d think under the dragon’s wing,isnt that how the line goes?

via patmos john, jesus began revelation by addressing falseness in the spirits of the seven major endtimes “churches,” or religious/spiritual practices — thats the FIRST business attended, before all the events and dramas… so he’s pretty interested in the matter of right worship, and predicted that both overt and hidden apostasies would dominate established religions in our times

Zeb,to adjust the sensitivity, well, no need to adjust the sensitivity maybe, just polish the scratch out of the record that makes it repeat quite so many times….ok……lets get the period on this sentence man, please. enough analogies and explaining, I’m clear, even changed the name. Lets roll along and you will see.

I actually rode a train through Romania once, when I was under the boot of family law and barely cracking open my eyes like a 1 week old puppy in the MRM because of what was happening to me, I took off and ran around in the hills of Transylvania for 10 days, The funny thing was I dont look anything like a southern European, Mediterranean lineage person, more Dutch or Scandinavian, and so I was looked at , and looked at, and looked at some more, never even uttered a word of Romanian except “ce faci” and a few other pedestrianisms. Funny that bit about the Gypsy’s. Cool places there though……

Mark Richardson seems alright to me.I’m not a conservative or a liberal, my take on politics is that they’re irrelevant since most people can be convinced to support their own castration and extermination with a flashy campaign. Look at what happened with feminism.

Most of the conservatives that are involved with the MRM seem to be the type of people who really support the concepts their political beliefs are founded on, intact families, tradition, and concepts that their Christ advocated, like charity and goodwill toward men. Ditto,MRA liberals. They really believe everyone should be treated equally, regardless of original nationality, creed,sex or sexuality.

They come to the MRM because they realize that men are not being served adequately.The ideal they signed on for is not being accomplished. What both groups fail to understand is that the ideas which they firmly support, and which are echoed by their religious/political leaders,while they may be your personal goal, they are only a tagline to your political and religious leaders. They haven’t made a mistake. It’s not like your group is basically well-intentioned but simply made an oversight. You have been lied to in order to get your support for a campaign which will benefit someone else. Maybe you do subconsciously realize this, and maybe that is the reason you’re here, supporting the group that has been most neglected and abused, us. Bravo. We shouldn’t fight amongst ourselves. We have all made the “right” choice, the only right choice, the choice to do right in a world that does wrong to good people.

“But why do MRA’s seem to have at least a quorum and maybe an outright majority who are seemingly loathsome of Christians, so much so they go apoplectic at the scent of a Bibles pages. The histrionic reactions to all things Christian or conservative is a huge liability to the main MRM.”

I’d like to address this. The reason you see this is because the mainstream reaction to Christianity is now overtly hostile in many circles. Too many Christians have used their personal faith like a badge of god-given supremacy, a way to say “I’m special and you’re not.” and a way to compel others to follow the tenets of a religion they do not accept. Because of this, the public has a sour taste in its mouth about Christianity. Christianity as a vehicle for Men’s Rights would doom the movement to the same ineffectualness the religious right has on the abortion issue. “Because God said so!”,you can see, does nothing to change the opinion of the courts or the masses.

Christians need to accept the fact that your religion is dying. This saddens me,a non-christian as much as it saddens you. Your opponents have all but won the culture, the only thing left is the victory dance, which is the sad part. The people who inherit the society you used to have a lock on will drive it directly into the ground.

Hedonism and Nihilism will sit side by side on the thrones reserved for Yahweh and Jesus, and our society will be destroyed by their ideas, the same way societies have been destroyed by religion gone too far and causing progress to stagnate.

Your opponents will kill God, take his throne and power, destroy everything built by you and your God, in the process destroying themselves and we will start again with you in power, because only rich societies can afford to promote individualism and your practical conservative ideas and insistence on austerity and self-sacrifice are needed to start things up initially. Then the process will begin again, this will happen for eternity until we are all wiped out or until some sort of global human enlightenment takes place (not likely),bypassing the necessity for this learning curve.

This cycle has been taking place since we exited the caves. No reason to get upset about it. Acknowledge it, and realize that eventually you will again have your turn at bat.

Since we cannot operate against the cultural zeitgeist, we must work within it. We cannot bring God into our arguments,not with each other, and especially not against the enemy. It won’t wash.

Again, I’m as sad as anyone to report this. As both conservatives and liberals with radical agendas that will harm those of us in the middle exist, both must be equally weighted to prevent either set of ideas from becoming all-powerful in society and destroying us from within. When conservatives rule, you get The Dark Ages, when liberals rule, you get Mao Tsedong. You could “pick your poison”,so to speak, but I’m not particularly fond of poison. When presented that kind of a choice, a choice between arsenic or cyanide, I choose cognac instead.

I agree with you post. I do think that certain “rules” have to be upheld by a majority of people in order to maintain order and thus civilization. Though the rules of any society can never fully represent the views of the whole. At most I would say no more than 85% of people would be happy under said rules. I fall into that left over amount of people. So I do think that its unfair for people in the majority to force their views on the out group. Its easy to be the majority. A lot of traditionalist don’t really think about that. I personally am not a traditionalist. I’m not religious. I don’t like gender roles/rules. I don’t think men should benefit over women and vice versa. I value more of the “individual autonomy” that you talked about above. With that being said, do I think more people should do that? Absolutely not. To me, it would be a perfect world if people could be like that, but I recognize that it is impossible. Who the hell would maintain order? If it was up to people like me, we would sink slowly into mayhem. I acknowledge that fact.

@Dalrock

In the manosphere you guys have a term NAWALT. Let me say I’m a pretty extreme version of it. No, I’m some “special snowflake”, but in my time spent in this arena of the blog world I will say that I can’t say I am the type of woman being discussed. While the information is interesting, I don’t personally relate to it. I find that as a woman, I’m siding with the guys here. Not because I’m a woman hater but because I can’t side with “team woman” just because we all happen to have vaginas.

I think you made very legitimate points, and Im really shocked that this is the world we live in. I can’t believe that woman can get away with this behavior. I can’t believe that men as a whole allowed it happen quite honestly. I think that feminism has given women too much power. You know the quote, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. It’s obvious that feminism gave women the power but absolved them from the responsibly and I have a really hard time with that. I guess you could say I’m more a of a gender egalitarian. Though the law is on my side as a woman I couldn’t imagine taking my (future) children from my (future) spouse just ” because I can.” I couldn’t imagine taking 65% of someones income plus child support “just because I can.” It angers me that women justify disgusting behavior by hiding behind these bullshit laws.

I will say that I proudly object to this mentality publicly. I openly disagreed with a “rape” once because the girl took 3 guys up to her dorm at 4am. She had to use her ID to swipe them into 2 checkpoints, unlock 2 sets of dorms doors before she got to her room. I really didn’t care if other people thought I was “blaming the victim”. If I hear someone bragging about asshole-ish behavior I will personally let them know what I think about it. How many other people do it? Not enough, sadly. I find often even men aren’t willing to stand up for what they believe in. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read “don’t anger the feminist in public” on blogs. You want to know how easy it is to get alienated by a whole group of women (and sometimes men) by daring to speak the truth? Daring to break from the pack? It happens to me all the time. Im a boat rocker/dust kicker. Lets just say I gave up having female friends a long time ago. It just doesn’t work. I don’t respect the pack mentality. It’s a joke.

I will say this (as a woman): Most women do need men to keep them in order. Put those bitches on a leash. Most women in today’s world are immature, irresponsible, neurotic children. As a woman I recognize this fact. They annoy me too. I’ve always related more to men than women though (if you know anything about MBTI, I score ENTJ). I think that if a woman cannot accept the responsibility that comes with power then she needs to be stripped of that power. I know feminist don’t want to hear it, but its the truth. I find I would respect them more if just acknowledged that one fact. Their refusal is scary. Modern feminist are hurting the female gender as a whole. Including this woman right here.

I really respect your blog. I can’t say I fit your demographic but I respect your message. I wish it got more public recognition though. I read somewhere that you’re writing a book? I think you should. A lot of what you have to say is really valid. A lot of men AND women could benefit from it.

Though can I ask all you manosphere guys one thing? When you wage this war can you leave women like me out of it? Thanks! :)
[D: Welcome to the blog. I very much agree that not all women are acting or thinking the same. Your comments and contribution are appreciated.]